Lukes & Others v Sovereign Trust: expert evidence and the limits of case management appeals in Guernsey 

The Royal Court of Guernsey's decision in the matter of Alan Lukes & Ors v Sovereign Trust (Guernsey) Limited [2026] GRC033, in which three jurats unanimously found the corporate trustee liable for gross negligence and wilful misconduct, has highlighted key case management principles not explicitly addressed in Guernsey until now.

In this case, the Court clarified the scope of its case management powers in circumstances where, after it found against the defendant Trustee on liability but before handing down its full and final judgment, the Jurats requested additional clarificatory expert evidence in relation to quantum. In declining the Trustee's leave to appeal the Court’s subsequent direction, the Royal Court reinforced the prominent fact-finding role of Guernsey Jurats and confirmed the strict approach to challenges against case management decisions.  

By establishing clear guidance on these principles, the decision has set a benchmark for future civil claims.  

Case overview: Alan Lukes & Ors v Sovereign Trust (Guernsey) Limited [2026] GRC033

Alan Lukes & Ors v Sovereign Trust (Guernsey) Limited [2026] GRC033 (Lukes & Others v Sovereign Trust) concerned a US$25 million claim by a group of 25 former airline pilots (the Plaintiffs) for breach of duty, gross negligence and wilful misconduct against Sovereign Trust (Guernsey) Limited (the Defendant). 

The Plaintiffs, who were all formerly Emirates Airline pilots based in Dubai, joined in the Aircrew Protection International Trust (the API Trust), paying their membership contributions for many years with the expectation that, should they become unable to work in the event of ill health, it would provide them with financial assistance.

Due to varying medical conditions, each Plaintiff lost their Class I Medical Certificate issued by the General Civil Aviation Authority of the United Arab Emirates and, as a result, their ability to earn a living in their chosen career. The subsequent collapse of the API Trust caused each of the Plaintiffs significant financial hardship.

Following a 10-day trial, during which Ogier Advocates Alex Horsbrugh-Porter and Katy Longan represented the Plaintiffs, the Jurats reached unanimous findings on liability against the Defendant, including gross negligence and wilful neglect. The Court held that the Defendant had failed to consider the recommendations made in its own actuarial report, failed to have annual financial statements, and failed to consider the issue of insurance soon enough. The Jurats requested further targeted clarificatory evidence from the instructed actuarial experts to assist them in determining quantum.

Consequently, the Judge made a case management decision directing the parties to provide this supplemental expert evidence. 

The Defendant’s grounds of appeal 

The Defendant sought leave to appeal the case management direction on multiple grounds, including that the direction for further evidence: 

• amounted to an improper re‑opening of the trial, and the Court ought to have applied the principles in Charlesworth v Relay Roads

• constituted a de facto split trial of liability and quantum, engaging the principles identified in Jinxin v Aser Media

• was unfair, allowing the Plaintiff to have an impermissible “second bite of the cherry”

• meant that the Court should have instead held that loss was not proven

The key issue to consider, was whether the Court: (i) erred in directing further expert evidence post-trial, and (ii) whether that decision met the high threshold required for granting leave to appeal a case management decision.  

Leave to appeal was refused on all grounds. The Court emphasised that the direction for further evidence was narrow and targeted, it applied equally to both parties which meant there was no unfairness, and it formed part of a continuing deliberative process in which the Jurats had not yet completed their assessment of quantum. Furthermore, it confirmed that the appeal did not meet the high threshold required to interfere with such decisions.  

Key principles

The Court emphasised the following key principles:

1. The high threshold for appeal against case management decisions 

The Court reinforced that the test for appeal against case management decisions is the ITG v Glenalla test, in which leave will only be granted if: (i) there is a real prospect of success (more than merely fanciful), or (ii) there is a public interest issue of principle. 

Case management decisions attract strong appellate deference and there is a consistent line of authority that the appeal courts should be "very slow" to interfere and will only do so where the decision is plainly wrong or involves an error of principle. 

The Royal Court retains wide procedural discretion, particularly in managing complex litigation efficiently and fairly. 

2. Nature of the case management direction    

The Court rejected the Defendant's submission that the trial had been "re-opened" as the Jurats were still deliberating. The Jurats’ unanimous findings on liability had been communicated ex tempore but the Court held that it was made plain from the transcript of the hearing that a full written judgment was to be delivered in due course. The final judgment had therefore not been handed down or sealed. 

Because this request came from the fact finders (the Jurats) themselves and not a party, the Court determined that this case was to be distinguished from Charlesworth and post‑judgment attempts to introduce new evidence in party‑driven applications to re‑open proceedings. 

The Court also rejected the submission that this was a “split trial”, holding that the direction did not bifurcate liability and quantum at all, but simply reflected the Jurats seeking assistance on an outstanding issue. Accordingly, split trial principles (including Jinxin) were dismissed, and the direction was properly viewed as a targeted evidential step within a single, continuing trial.

3. A flexible approach to fact finders needing more assistance 

The Court adopted the pragmatic approach taken by the High Court in Autonomy v Lynch, in which a Court may allow further expert evidence where (i) it is likely to assist the fact-finder; (ii) there is no real forensic prejudice, and (iii) any further hearing is proportionate. 

In this case, the court concluded that the request for further evidence to assist the Jurats was entirely proportionate to the value of the claim, the importance of it to the 25 Plaintiffs and the Defendant, and the “considerable complexity” of the actuarial expert reports. 

4. The central role of the Jurats 

A particularly important and Guernsey-specific aspect of this case is that the direction was driven by the Jurats' own request in their capacity as primary fact-finders. Their request was targeted, limited and linked to existing submissions. Jurats have an active deliberative function and may request further evidence where needed to complete their assessment. 

5. The overriding objective is paramount  

The decision is a helpful reminder to litigators of how these applications sit within the Royal Court Civil Rules (RCCR) and the paramount importance of the overriding objective. The Court found that the direction was justified by the need to deal with the case justly, ensure equality of arms, maintain proportionality, and address complex expert issues. 

Practical implications for trustees and fiduciaries in Guernsey 

Trustees and fiduciaries should be aware that the Guernsey Royal Court may, of its own volition, and at a late stage, require further expert evidence, particularly in complex quantum disputes. This flexibility may impact trial strategies and the presentation of expert evidence. 

The case also serves as a reminder that appeals against case management decisions will face a very high hurdle and should not be made lightly. In this case the Defendant was ordered to pay the costs of its failed application. Parties to litigation should factor this threshold into their litigation risk assessments and take realistic advice at the outset.  

Finally, the case makes plain that the role of the Jurats is central to litigation in Guernsey, and a trial judge will ensure that the lay fact finders receive the assistance that they need and will do so with the overriding objective firmly in mind:  

"The Case Management Decision was centrally informed by the request made by the Jurats for this further limited evidence. It plainly engaged the overriding objective of the RCCR, namely to deal with the case justly."

Ogier’s expertise 

Ogier has one of the largest Dispute Resolution teams in our worldwide jurisdictions, advising on technical, strategic and procedural aspects across the spectrum of contentious commercial issues and disputes.  

For further tailored legal advice, contact a member of our team. 

About Ogier

Ogier is a professional services firm with the knowledge and expertise to handle the most demanding and complex transactions and provide expert, efficient and cost-effective services to all our clients. We regularly win awards for the quality of our client service, our work and our people.

Disclaimer

This client briefing has been prepared for clients and professional associates of Ogier. The information and expressions of opinion which it contains are not intended to be a comprehensive study or to provide legal advice and should not be treated as a substitute for specific advice concerning individual situations.

Regulatory information can be found under Legal Notice