Trusts depended on actions in personam ; action could be brought only against the trustee.

The guarantee, however, generated only an action in personam, and admitted only judgment in terms of money.

An action in rem now lay against the trustee, where earlier law had allowed only an action in personam.

The High Court has jurisdiction to hear and try any action in personam (that is, directed towards a particular person) where:

Action in rem (property) is an action separated from the action in personam.

Claimants take advantage of the action in rem, rather action in personam, because an action in rem is more easy and convenient to institute.

It is more difficult, in an action in personam, to summon the defendant via writ outside the jurisdiction unless the defendant is a resident of EU or EFTA countries.

There was a long tradition of regarding trusts as protected by actions in personam ; and it is not likely that jurists were early (or even late) prepared to abandon this and make available a real protection in all circumstances.

The picture which emerges is not of a remedy in rem in the sense of an initial action granted against third parties in possession of the property under trust; instead the missio was a means of execution against third parties which was available following a normal action in personam.