A former trustee pursuing a £1.6 million claim has had its case thrown out after the Royal Court found that it had “deliberately” disengaged from proceedings it had brought itself.

But the collapse of Leo Trustees LLC’s claim is not the end of the long-running trust dispute – with the company now also barred from defending a counterclaim against it.

Leo had been seeking an indemnity covering costs and remuneration incurred while it was trustee of the Capri Family Trust.

But its claim has now been struck out, while the company has also been barred from defending a counterclaim brought by replacement trustee Solaro AG.

A dispute dating back years…

The dispute dates back several years, with Leo’s claim opposed by Solaro, the trust’s protector and professional adviser BN Finanz AG.

They argued that Leo should be deprived of its indemnity for reasons including its conduct during the proceedings, its hostility towards being removed as trustee and an alleged conflict of interest involving Daniel Tribaldos, described in the judgment as the company’s “controlling mind”.

In March 2025, Leo was given four months to re-engage with the case or have its claim struck out.

The court had heard that the company stopped responding to correspondence and failed to progress the proceedings it had initiated.

…and a last-minute return

Then, just four days before the deadline expired, Leo’s lawyers announced that they had been reappointed and said the company intended to “take every step to bring these proceedings to determination”.

However, Bailiff Robert MacRae said: “In short, that simply has not happened.”

The company failed to meet a deadline to agree how documents would be disclosed and later proposed pausing the Jersey case until separate proceedings in England had concluded.

Leo’s lawyers then stopped acting for the company again in October 2025, telling the other parties to contact it directly.

The unusual saga later took another international turn when Mr Tribaldos asked for a hearing to be postponed because LT Services AG had been granted a four-month debt-restructuring moratorium in Switzerland.

He compared the process to bankruptcy protection in the United States and argued that the Jersey proceedings should be suspended.

However, no formal application was lodged and no evidence was submitted showing that the Swiss moratorium applied in Jersey.

The Royal Court also heard that Mr Tribaldos and a connected company were continuing to participate in the separate English proceedings despite the Swiss process.

“Taken steps to deliberately undermine the court process”

Mr MacRae said there could be “no real doubt” that Mr Tribaldos and Leo had deliberately decided not to participate in the Jersey case.

He said the company had disengaged twice without providing a legitimate explanation and had “taken steps to deliberately undermine the court process”.

Its decision to reappoint its lawyers shortly before the deadline, followed by its subsequent conduct, appeared to have been “a tactical move without any underlying intention” of helping bring the case to trial, he added.

Leo’s £1.6 million claim was struck out and the company was barred from pursuing it.

Its defence to Solaro’s counterclaim was also struck out, with judgment on liability entered in Solaro’s favour. The value of that claim has yet to be determined.

Leo was further ordered to pay the other parties’ legal costs, with those arising from the strike-out application to be assessed on the more punitive indemnity basis.