英國樞密院在 A 等人訴 C 等人 [2026] UKPC 11 一案中的判決確認，保護人同意條款可以賦予離岸司法管轄區的保護人獨立的自由裁量權，而不僅僅是對受託人決策的監督檢查。

百慕達案（又稱X 信託案）的裁決將保護人提升到信託治理結構中具有真正影響力的地位，而不僅僅是裁判，這取決於信託文件的起草方式。

提交樞密院審理的案件涉及若干信託文件的爭議，這些文件規定了保護人或「保護機構」的任命。文件要求，受託人未經「保護機構」事先書面同意，不得行使某些權力。

隨後出現的爭議在於，保護人在行使這些同意權時是否擁有獨立的酌情裁量權。這種酌情裁量權賦予他們拒絕同意的權利，即使擬議的行為是任何一群知情的、合理的受託人都有權採取的行動。

法院的職責在於確定獨立裁量權是否適用，或僅僅是為了使保護人確信擬議的行動是合理且知情的受託人團體有權採取的行動。這兩種情況分別稱為「狹義角色」和「廣義角色」。

百慕達最高法院一審裁定，保護人的角色僅限於監督，確保受託人權力得到妥善行使。這項裁決在百慕達上訴法院受到質疑，上訴法院維持了最高法院的裁決。最終，該案被提交至樞密院，即終審法院。

樞密院一致推翻了百慕達兩級法院的判決，並準許上訴，認為保護人默認擁有更廣泛的角色。樞密院認為，如果法律文件賦予受託人否決其擬議行動的權力，則除非信託文件中另有明確規定，否則該權力的接受者在行使否決權方面不受任何限制。此外，信託文件中的若干特徵也積極支持了更廣泛的角色。法院駁回了更廣泛的角色會導致受託人和保護人之間陷入僵局的論點。

然而，具體案件中判決的效力取決於信託文件的措詞。沃克斯律師事務所指出，委託人仍然可以選擇將保護人的角色限制為“監督者”，但信託文件必須以明確的措辭加以規定。否則，即使受託人的決定本身合理且恰當，保護人可能有權拒絕同意。

該裁決的影響在不同司法管轄區也存在差異。對於百慕達而言，該裁決具有決定性意義，它使百慕達重新強調了謹慎起草法律文件的重要性。然而，澤西島的立場並未改變，皇家法院在「皮埃蒙特和里維埃拉信託案」（Re Piedmont and Riviera Trusts，[2021] JRC 248）中已採納了與樞密院在本案中相同的做法。樞密院現已明確認可了這一觀點。

沃克律師事務所認為，格恩西島法院尚未就此問題作出裁決，但他們很可能會將樞密院的判決視為極具說服力的依據。尤其值得注意的是，樞密院明確承認，該問題「對於離岸信託和財產安排而言具有普遍的公共重要性，其影響遠遠超出本案所涉財產安排」。

沃克斯表示：“受託人現在必須應對一個可能更加複雜的決策環境，在這個環境中，不能想當然地認為保護人的批准會遵循合理的提案。同意條款的具體措辭對於確定保護人的角色範圍也至關重要。”

Key ruling in Bermuda settles 'wide versus narrow' debate on protectors' powers

The UK Privy Council's judgment in A and others v C and others [2026] UKPC 11 affirms that protector consent provisions may confer an independent discretion on protectors in offshore jurisdictions, not merely a supervisory check on trustee decision-making.

The ruling in the Bermuda case – also known as Re the X Trusts – elevates the protector to a position of genuine influence within the trust's governance structure rather than just a referee, depending on the drafting of the trust instrument.

The case before the Privy Council concerned a dispute over the trust documents for a number of trusts providing for the appointment of a protector or 'Protectorate'. The documents required that the trustees would not exercise certain powers without obtaining the prior written consent of the 'Protectorate'.

The dispute that subsequently arose concerned whether the protectors' role in exercising these consent powers was to exercise an independent discretion. This discretion would entitle them to withhold consent even where the proposed exercise is one a reasonable body of properly informed trustees would be entitled to undertake.

The court’s role was then to determine whether independent discretion applied or merely existed to satisfy the protectors that the proposed exercise is one a reasonable body of properly informed trustees would be entitled to undertake. These alternatives are referred to respectively as the Narrow Role and the Wider Role.

At first instance, Bermuda's supreme court held that the protectors’ role was the Narrow one of watchdog, ensuring due execution of trustee powers. This finding was challenged in the Court of Appeal of Bermuda, which agreed with the supreme court. Ultimately, the case was referred to the Privy Council, the court of last resort.

The Privy Council unanimously overturned the decisions of both Bermuda courts and allowed the appeal, holding that the protectors, by default, have the Wider Role. It considered that, where a legal document gives a power to veto a proposed action by a trustee, the recipient of the power is under no constraint as to how that power of veto is exercised, unless the language in the trust instruments imposes express constraints. Moreover, there were several features of the trust instruments that positively supported the Wider Role. The court rejected the argument that the Wider Role would lead to deadlock between trustees and protectors.

However, the effect of the judgment in any individual case depends on the drafting of the trust instrument. Settlors can still choose to limit a protector's role to that of a 'watchdog', but the trust instrument must say so in unequivocal terms, says law firm Walkers. Otherwise, a protector may be entitled to withhold consent from a trustee's decision even where the decision is itself rational and proper.

The ruling's impact also varies across jurisdictions. It is definitive for Bermuda, where it now places a renewed emphasis on careful drafting. However, the position in Jersey is unchanged, where the Royal Court in Re Piedmont and Riviera Trusts, [2021] JRC 248 had already adopted the same approach as the Privy Council's in the current case. The Privy Council has now explicitly endorsed that view.

The issue has not yet been resolved in the Guernsey courts, but they are likely to treat the Privy Council's judgment as highly persuasive, according to Walkers. This is especially the case as the Privy Council expressly acknowledged that the question is 'one of general public importance for offshore trusts and settlements generally, extending well beyond the settlements in question.'

'Trustees must now navigate a potentially more complex decision-making landscape in which protector approval cannot be assumed to follow a rational proposal', said Walkers. 'The precise wording of consent provisions will also be critical in determining the scope of a protector's role.'

Sources
• BAILII
• Walkers