Akers v Samba Financial Group Ltd [2017] AC 424

Facts

  • The case involved shares held under an English law trust but transferred in Saudi Arabia, a jurisdiction that does not recognize the concept of trusts.
  • The central dispute was whether the beneficiaries’ equitable interests in the shares persisted after a transfer executed in Saudi Arabia.
  • The validity of the transfer was not contested under Saudi law, but the beneficiaries argued that their interests under English law should survive.
  • The Supreme Court analyzed how English trust law and the doctrine of lex situs interact in the context of a cross-border transfer.

Issues

  1. Whether the transfer of shares held in trust in a foreign jurisdiction that does not recognize trusts, and which was valid under that foreign law, extinguished the beneficiaries’ equitable interests under English law.
  2. Whether the enforcement of such a transfer, resulting in the loss of equitable interests, would violate English public policy and thus not be recognized by English courts.
  3. How the lex situs rule applies to the disposition of trust assets situated abroad.

Decision

  • The Supreme Court held that the lex situs rule governed the validity of the transfer because the property (shares) was situated in Saudi Arabia at the time of transfer.
  • It was determined that, since Saudi law does not recognize trusts, the beneficiaries’ equitable interests in the shares were extinguished upon valid transfer under Saudi law.
  • The court rejected the argument that English public policy would prevent recognition of the transfer, stating that public policy exceptions in private international law are to be narrowly construed.
  • The beneficiaries’ claims under English trust law could not override the effect of a transfer valid under the law of the location of the property.

Legal Principles

  • The lex situs rule provides that the law of the place where the property is located determines the validity of any transfer.
  • Equitable interests in property are treated as proprietary and are subject to the same conflict of laws rules as legal interests.
  • English courts grant recognition to foreign judgments and legal concepts unless a fundamental principle of English public policy is violated, and such exceptions are rare.
  • Trusts and their effects may be disregarded in foreign jurisdictions that do not recognize the trust concept, affecting the enforceability of equitable interests.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court clarified that in cross-border trust disputes, the lex situs rule prevails: if trust assets are located in a jurisdiction that does not recognize trusts and a transfer is valid there, beneficiaries’ equitable interests are extinguished under English law.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal