Appointment of protector by beneficiaries

We have a situation where the entire class of beneficiaries have the ability to appoint or remove the protector (currently Jersey proper law applies, but this will change shortly to New Zealand proper law). The protector has negative powers of veto. It seems unusual that the beneficiaries hold this power over a fiduciary and I would welcome members’ thoughts on this.
Lee Harris
Turner Hopkins
New Zealand

It sounds administratively problematic if you have a wide class (and possibly impossible if you have minors and unborns) but I don’t see any lurking issues.

If it is truly the entire class then they would have power to do this under Saunders -v- Vautier anyway. The power may just prevent any arguments that they have resettled the funds - which might be an issue under S v V.

Andrew Goodman
Osborne Clarke