Shortly thereafter, the respondents, who were some of the beneficiaries, commenced proceedings in Jersey against the appellants, who consisted of the settlor, the Jersey and Mauritian trustees, alleging various breaches of trust. In response, the appellants sought to stay those proceedings. Their main contention was that, by virtue of cl.12(6) of the trust deed, the administration of the trust by a Mauritian company meant that dispute in the instant case had to be subjected to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Mauritian courts. The first instance and appeal court in Jersey both rejected the appellants’ contention. Thereafter, the appellants appealed to the Privy Council.

For present purposes, the Privy Council was presented with two key questions: (1) did cl.12(6) of the trust deed act as an exclusive jurisdiction clause, affording jurisdiction to the Mauritian court? If so, then (2) should the proceedings in Jersey be stayed?

Decision: Appeal dismissed.

Held: (1) The phrase “forum for the administration of the trusts”, in cl.12(6), did not amount to a jurisdiction clause. Even if it did, it was doubtful that it intended to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Mauritian courts. (2) Even if the Board had been persuaded that cl.12(6) conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Mauritian court, it was still justified for the court in Jersey to sustain its proceedings.

Comment: In essence, the first question was concerned with the interpretation of the phrase “forum for the administration of the trusts”. The ruling clarifies that the phrase