Has English court's jurisdiction over trust disputes got wider as a result of changes to Art 7(6)?

In Article 7(6) of the Regulation (Recast) the following five words appear immediately after “sued as” namely “regards a dispute brought against” . Thus Article 7(6) now provides (with differences from Article 5(6) in bold: "A person domiciled in a Member State may, in another Member state, be sued: (6) as regards a dispute brought against

a settlor trustee or beneficiary of a trust created by operation of a statue, or by a written instrument, or created orally and evidenced in writing, in the courts of the member state in which the trust is domiciled"

Do forum members agree that these five highlighted words water down the requirement for a claimant to show that the foreign defendant is “sued as” a settlor trustee or beneficiary (something that was interpreted strictly in Gomez case and entailed a lenghtlly enquiry into the capacity in which the defendant was being sued). Instead, it is now necessary to show that the dispute is brought “against” a foreign defendant who is “a settlor, trustee or beneficiary of a trust”. Do forum members agree that this allows a more purposive approach (consistent Professor Schlosser’s Report) that this jurisdiction extends to internal trust disputes thus widening the English court’s jurisdiction?

I would. For example, a protector would apparently be such a person. But does “a dispute against…” mean that at least one defendant who can properly be sued in the court of the trust’s domicile must be a settlor, trustee or beneficiary ?

Mark Hubbard
New Square Chambers