header-logo header-logo

25 October 2018 / William Moffett
Issue: 7814 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

Trustees’ duties revisited

Not all beneficiaries or trustee decisions are equal, as William Moffett reports

    • Schmidt v Rosewood and Re Londonderry’s Settlement have dominated the principles of trustee’s duties of disclosure to beneficiaries.
    • In the case of Lewis v Tamplin, these principles have been revisited.

    The modern law of trustees’ duties of disclosure to beneficiaries has been dominated by two cases: Schmidt v Rosewood [2003] 2 AC 709, [2003] 3 All ER 76 (the approach to be taken to disclosure to beneficiaries on demand, and the theory underlying it); and Re Londonderry’s Settlement [1965] Ch 918, [1964] 3 All ER 855 (trustees generally will not be made to disclose the reasons for their decisions).

    The scope and application of the principles of those two cases has recently been revisited, and qualified, in the case of Lewis v Tamplin [2018] EWHC 777 (Ch), a decision of His Honour Judge Matthews sitting as a judge of the High Court. The questions that the case raised were said by the judge to be ‘a matter of some practical importance’

    If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
    If you are already a subscriber sign in
    ...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

    MOVERS & SHAKERS

    Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

    Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

    Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

    Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

    Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

    Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

    Lime Solicitors—four promotions

    Lime Solicitors—four promotions

    Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

    NEWS
    The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
    A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
    Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
    Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
    Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
    back-to-top-scroll