FEREYDOON MOSSANEN & 3 Ors v JULIUS BAER TRUST COMPANY (SINGAPORE) LIMITED
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 14–20 September 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Kristy Tan |
| Charges / claim | Powers, Trusts, Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | Allen & Gledhill LLP, Calvin Liang LLC, Drew & Napier LLC, Aaron Lee, Aisha Rami Nazzal, Gerald Paul Seah, Jennifer Lim, Low Zhe Ning, Woo Shu Yan, Zhang Weihao |
Source: [2026] SGHC 190, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (10)
Parties (5)
Case Significance
Fereydoon Mossanen and others v Julius Baer Trust Co (Singapore) Ltd [2026] SGHC 190 was decided in the General Division of the High Court by Kristy Tan J on 18 September 2026, after hearings on 15 July and 5 August 2026. In HC/OC 848/2025, the claimants applied in HC/SUM 932/2026 for summary determination of nine issues on the deeds of a family trust, The Moss Trust (Singapore), established by the first claimant, with Julius Baer Trust Company (Singapore) Limited as trustee. The issues included implied terms, the imputed exercise of powers doctrine, the validity of the protectors' appointments and a term for protectors to resolve conflicts. The court found the 2019 Modification validly vested the power of amendment in the trustee and held the Protector Resolution Clause void and unenforceable.
[2026] SGHC 190 explained
FEREYDOON MOSSANEN & 3 Ors v JULIUS BAER TRUST COMPANY (SINGAPORE) LIMITED ([2026] SGHC 190) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 18 September 2026. It is categorised under Powers, Trusts, and Civil Procedure. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2026] SGHC 190 about?
FEREYDOON MOSSANEN & 3 Ors v JULIUS BAER TRUST COMPANY (SINGAPORE) LIMITED ([2026] SGHC 190) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Powers — Exercise — When a power is validly exercised”, “Trusts — Express trusts — Implying term in trust deed”, “Powers — Exercise — Imputed exercise of powers doctrine”, and “Trusts — Express trusts — Interpretation of terms in trust deed”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC 190 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGHC 126, [2024] SGHC 261, and [2024] SGHC 153. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The General Division of the High Court heard the claimants' application under O 9 r 19 and O 9 r 25(3) of the Rules of Court 2021 for summary determination of nine issues on the terms of deeds of The Moss Trust (Singapore). It held that the 2019 Modification validly vested the power of amendment in the trustee, that the current terms are in the 2024 Trust Deed, that the protectors were validly appointed, and that the Protector Resolution Clause was void as ousting the courts' jurisdiction. It also held cl 4.3(v) required distribution of all assets in equal shares to the trustees of the Amir Trust and the Nat Trust.
What was Mossanen v Julius Baer Trust Co [2026] SGHC 190 about?
It concerned an application for summary determination of nine issues about the deeds of The Moss Trust (Singapore), including who held the power of amendment, the protectors' appointments, and the distribution of trust assets after the death of the Settlor's wife.
Was the Protector Resolution Clause enforceable in [2026] SGHC 190?
No. The court answered Issue 9 in the negative, holding the Protector Resolution Clause contrary to public policy for ousting the jurisdiction of the courts, and therefore void and unenforceable.
Cases Cited (29)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC 190)