header-logo header-logo

Trustees’ duties revisited

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

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

    Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

    Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

    Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

    Druces—Lisa Cardy

    Druces—Lisa Cardy

    Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

    Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

    Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

    Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

    NEWS
    The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
    Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
    Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
    Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
    In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
    back-to-top-scroll