The role of the trust protector has long been a defining feature of offshore trust structures, particularly in jurisdictions such as the Isle of Man. Yet despite their widespread use, there has historically been limited judicial guidance on the scope of a protector’s powers — especially where the trust instrument requires the protector’s consent to the exercise of key trustee discretions but does not spell out how that consent is to be exercised.
That uncertainty has now been addressed at the highest level.
In A and others v C and others [2026] UKPC 11, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has delivered a landmark judgment clarifying the default role of fiduciary protectors. Although the appeal arose from Bermuda, the reasoning is of direct relevance to the Isle of Man, where Privy Council decisions remain highly persuasive and, in practice, often determinative.
The Issue: “Narrow” or “Wider” Role?
The central question before the Privy Council was whether, in the absence of express wording, a protector who must consent to trustee decisions is limited to a “narrow” supervisory role, or whether they may exercise an independent discretion.
- Under the narrow role, the protector’s function is essentially supervisory: to check whether the trustees’ proposed decision is lawful, rational and within the scope of their powers. If it is, consent must be given.
- Under the wider role, the protector is entitled, indeed required, to form their own view of the merits of the proposal and may withhold consent even where the trustees’ decision would otherwise be lawful and capable of court approval.
Until now, offshore courts had taken differing approaches, with first‑instance authority pulling in both directions. This created real uncertainty for trustees, protectors and beneficiaries alike
The Privy Council’s Decision
The Privy Council has now decisively endorsed the wider role as the default position
The Board held that where a trust instrument:
- confers a power of veto or consent on a protector.
- appoints the protector as a fiduciary; and
- does not expressly limit how that power is to be exercised,
The protector is not confined to reviewing the legality or rationality of the trustees’ decision. Instead, the protector is entitled to exercise an independent judgment, subject to ordinary fiduciary constraints (including proper purpose, no conflict and no profit rules).
Importantly, the Board rejected the idea that the court should choose between competing “labels” (narrow versus wider). The correct question, it said, is simply: what constraints, if any, does the trust deed actually impose? In the absence of express restrictions, none should be implied.
Why This Matters for the Isle of Man
The decision has significant implications for the Isle of Man trust industry.
Manx trust instruments frequently include protector consent provisions in broadly standard form, particularly in:
- high‑value family trusts.
- structures involving reserved powers or sensitive shareholdings; and
- trusts administered by professional trustees with protectors appointed to provide family or commercial oversight.
The Privy Council’s reasoning strongly supports the view that, under Isle of Man law, protectors are not mere “watchdogs”. Rather, they are substantive fiduciaries with real decision‑making influence where the trust deed so provides.
That position is also consistent with earlier Manx authority recognising the fiduciary nature and importance of the protector’s role, albeit without the same level of analytical clarity.
Key Practical Consequences
- Protector consent is not a rubber stamp
Trustees should not assume that a rational decision will automatically secure the protector’s consent. Early engagement and full disclosure will be essential. - Protectors must actively exercise judgment
A protector who simply defers to trustees without forming an independent view may now be exposed to criticism — or challenge — for failing to exercise their fiduciary powers properly. - Deadlock risk is a feature, not a flaw
The Privy Council acknowledged that the wider role carries a risk of disagreement or deadlock. However, it regarded this as a deliberate consequence of the settlor’s design, not a reason to narrow the protector’s function. - Drafting matters more than ever
For new structures, settlors and advisers should now consider expressly defining the protector’s role — whether wide, narrow, or bespoke. Silence will no longer be a neutral choice. - Existing trusts may need review
Trustees and protectors involved in long‑running structures may wish to revisit how consent powers are being exercised, particularly where practice has drifted toward a narrow, compliance‑only approach.
Looking Ahead
The Privy Council’s decision brings welcome clarity to an area of offshore trust law that has long been unsettled. For the Isle of Man, it reinforces the jurisdiction’s alignment with modern, commercially realistic trust principles, while underlining the need for careful drafting and disciplined fiduciary decision‑making.
For trustees, protectors and beneficiaries alike, the message is clear: protector powers mean what they say, and unless constrained by the trust deed, they are powers to be exercised, not merely checked.
If you would like to discuss how this decision may affect an existing trust structure, or how protector provisions should be framed in new settlements, please contact our Trust & Private Client team.
Disclaimer
The information and/or opinions contained in this article are necessarily brief and general in nature and do not constitute legal or taxation advice. Appropriate legal or other professional advice should be sought for any specific matter. Any reliance on such information and/or opinions is therefore solely at the user’s own risk, and DQ Advocates Limited (and its associates and subsidiaries) is not responsible for, and does not accept any responsibility or liability in connection with any action taken or reliance placed upon such content.
