Singapore's High Court has ruled that a clause giving trust protectors the final say over trust disputes is void because it ousts the jurisdiction of the courts, a finding that could prompt families and trustees to revisit similar wording in their own deeds.

TL;DR

  • Singapore's High Court (Kristy Tan J, [2026] SGHC 190) held that the "Protector Resolution Clause" in the Moss Trust deed is contrary to public policy, void and unenforceable. The ruling was reported on 16 October 2026.
  • The same judgment upheld the trustee's power of amendment and found the two protectors validly appointed, so the finding is specific to this clause and its wording.
  • Families with protector-driven trusts may want their lawyers to review how dispute-resolution language is drafted. This article is not legal advice.

What did the Singapore High Court decide about protector clauses?

In Mossanen and others v Julius Baer Trust Company (Singapore) Limited, the General Division of the High Court considered clause 3.2(ii) of the 2024 Trust Deed of the Moss Trust. That clause gave the trust's protector "absolute authorisation" to resolve conflicts and ambiguities in the deed. The judge answered the validity question in the negative and concluded the clause was contrary to public policy for ousting the jurisdiction of the courts, and therefore void and unenforceable.

Who is involved, and what does a trust protector do?

The claimants are the settlor, Fereydoon Mossanen, two further family members named in the case, and a protector, Linus Jaeggi. The defendant is Julius Baer Trust Company (Singapore) Limited, the Moss Trust's trustee and a unit of Swiss private bank Julius Baer. A trust protector is a person or committee given oversight powers over a trust, often including powers to appoint or remove trustees. According to Business Times reporting republished by Singapore Law Watch, the Moss Trust holds assets worth over US$50 million, including US and UK properties, and the dispute began after the settlor's wife died in late 2024.

What else did the court decide?

The clause was only one of several issues. The court held that the settlor had a limited implied power to amend the trust so that the power of amendment could be vested in another person, and that the 2019 modification validly vested that power in the trustee. It held that Mr Jaeggi and a second protector were validly appointed. It also held that clause 4.3(v) required the trustee, after the wife's death, to distribute the trust assets in equal shares to the trustees of two Delaware trusts, by transferring the shares in the underlying investment companies. According to the judgment, the court applied the imputed exercise of powers doctrine in Singapore for the first time.

Why does it matter for family offices in Asia?

Singapore is a major base for family offices and trust structures, and protector clauses are widely used in offshore trusts. Drew & Napier, the law firm that represented the Moss Trust side and argued for the clause, told the Business Times that no reported Singapore case had previously addressed such clauses and that the ruling could have significant ramifications for the trust industry. Practical questions a family may wish to raise with its lawyers include: does our deed say protector decisions are final on questions of law as well as fact, can a court still review a protector's decision, and who resolves ambiguity if the protector cannot? For related context, see our guides on succession planning questions at https://asiafamilyofficehub.com/five-succession-planning-questions-asian-families-should-ask-what-withers-lawyers-say-and-what-the-data-adds/ and the single family office notification deadline at https://asiafamilyofficehub.com/singapore-single-family-offices-have-until-15-june-2027-to-notify-mas-what-the-revised-framework-requires/ and on the wealth transfer ahead at https://asiafamilyofficehub.com/us-1-3-trillion-wealth-transfer-what-l-e-k-s-study-means-for-asian-business-owning-families/

What is not confirmed?

It is not confirmed whether any party will appeal. A Julius Baer spokesperson declined to comment on ongoing proceedings, per the Business Times. No distribution of trust assets has taken place, per the same report. How the reasoning applies to other trusts depends on the exact wording of each deed, and this article does not assess any specific structure.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a trust protector?

A trust protector is a person or committee with oversight powers over a trust, which may include appointing or removing trustees and approving certain decisions. The exact powers depend on what the trust deed says.

Does this ruling make every protector clause invalid?

No. The court decided on the validity of one clause in one trust deed. Other clauses may be worded differently, for example by preserving the court's ability to review a protector's decision, and each would need to be assessed on its own terms.

Did the court side with the trustee on everything?

No. The trustee was found to hold a valid power of amendment and the two protectors were found to be validly appointed, while the protector resolution clause was held void.

Sources and Method

This article is based on the judgment Mossanen and others v Julius Baer Trust Company (Singapore) Limited [2026] SGHC 190 on the Singapore Courts eLitigation site (https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2026_SGHC_190), read for the case details, the issues and the conclusion, and on Business Times reporting by Chloe Lim published on 16 October 2026 and republished by Singapore Law Watch (https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/Headlines/High-Court-rules-against-Julius-Baers-Singapore-trust-arm-in-US50-million-family-trust-dispute). The detailed reasoning on the protector clause was not reviewed in full, and this article does not constitute legal advice. Opinions and expected impact are attributed to the named law firm.