AR v ZG LCRO 60 / 2010 (15 March 2011) [pdf, 82 KB]
...[12] An essential point raised by the Applicant is that the consent of all three Trustees was required for any decisions made by the Trust. In this light he objected to the Practitioner having undertaken work for the Trust that had been done at the request of his wife, about which he claimed to have no knowledge. This appeared to be the basis of his objection that he, the Applicant, ended up paying for a bill in relation to work in respect of which he was unaware. [13] In reply...