Guernsey Case Summary: Murray Stewart v Suntera Private Wealth [2026] GRC 040

In a landmark decision handed down on April 15, 2026, the Royal Court of Guernsey delivered a comprehensive judgment against professional trustee Suntera Private Wealth (Guernsey) Limited. The court found that Suntera acted for an improper purpose, failed in its duty of adequate deliberation, acted irrationally, and was grossly negligent when executing a major restructuring of a family trust structure.

Background to the Dispute

The dispute centered on the estate accumulated by the late Alistair Stewart, who settled the Guernsey-administered AACS Settlement in 2001 (later supplemented by the HMC Settlement in 2019). Alistair’s long-standing letters of wishes expressed that the trusts holding cash and investments valued over $115 million were intended to preserve wealth for up to 100 years for his widow, Helen, and ultimately be split into equal sub-funds for his adult children, Murray and Catherine, and their descendants.

Following Alistair’s death in 2018, discussions began on providing Murray and Catherine with earlier access to trust capital. In February 2021, Suntera executed a major restructuring, dividing the assets into three new US Foreign Grantor Trusts:

• The A Trust: Allocated $15 million for Murray’s benefit.
• The B Trust: Allocated $15 million for Catherine’s benefit.
• The Future Gen Trust: Held the remaining majority of family wealth for future generations.

To achieve perceived US tax benefits for certain family members living in the US, Suntera implemented "Grantor" mechanisms into the new trusts. However, while Catherine was made Grantor of her trust, Suntera refused to make Murray the Grantor of his own trust. Instead, his mother, Helen, was named Grantor of the A Trust, giving her unconstrained powers to direct income, grant powers of appointment, or completely revoke Murray’s trust.

Murray challenged the restructuring in court, alleging that Suntera had acted in breach of trust.

Key Findings of the Royal Court

The Royal Court of Guernsey ruled in favor of Murray on all primary grounds:

• Improper Purpose (Exercises Void): Fiduciary powers must be exercised for the purpose for which they were conferred. By creating Foreign Grantor Trusts with broad powers of revocation and appointment, Suntera placed trust assets beyond the protective fiduciary framework of a discretionary trust and ousted the supervisory jurisdiction of the court. The court held that Suntera exercised its powers for an improper purpose, rendering the restructuring exercises void.
• Inadequate Deliberation (Breach of Fiduciary Duty): The court found that Suntera abdicated its independent decision-making to Helen and her formal consultant, David Selvan. Suntera treated Murray as an adversary, ignored repeated warnings from its own legal counsel regarding impartiality, and failed to seek proper advice on how the Grantor powers would impact Murray’s financial security. Had the exercises not been declared void, the court confirmed they would have been set aside as voidable due to this breach of duty.
• Irrationality and Perversity: The court held that no reasonable trustee properly directing itself could have implemented a structure that created such stark inequality between the siblings and left Murray’s trust fund vulnerable to revocation by another family member.
• Gross Negligence: Suntera was found grossly negligent in its drafting and preparation of the A Trust instrument. The court characterized Suntera’s disregard for how the Grantor powers would function within a conventional discretionary trust structure as "jaw-dropping" carelessness.

Major Implications

This judgment highlights the strict standards expected of professional fiduciaries. It serves as a reminder that trustees must maintain strict impartiality, exercise independent judgment rather than deferring blindly to preferred family members, and fully analyze the trust law implications of complex cross-border tax structures before execution.

Source: https://www.guernseylegalresources.gg/unreported-judgments/royal-court/2026/2026-grc039/