JOHN CONTI ESQ

KATZ WILL TRUST

NOTE ON PRIVY COUNCIL DECISION

3. For the avoidance of any argument, the Judicial Committee was expressly asked to make clear that it was still open to the Petitioner to argue in the Manx courts that the Respondent had, for other reasons, in particular, breach of fiduciary duty, not validly retired as a trustee in October 1983. Of the three members of the Judicial Committee, Lord Steyn indicated orally that that was the case and Lord Hutton expressed his assent by vigorously nodding his head. Lord Browne- Wilkinson was hesitant to express an opinion on the point. Nevertheless, the majority of the Committee was clearly dismissing the application on the basis that it was premature and that the point had not yet been litigated before the Manx courts.

4. Even Lord Browne-Wilkinson made it clear that he did not consider that the Petitioner was in any way precluded from arguing that the purported resignation of the Respondent in 1983 was, even if it was valid, an improper act which would give rise to a claim for damages.