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

    NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

    NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

    Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

    Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

    Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

    Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

    Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

    Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

    Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

    NEWS
    Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
    The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
    Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
    Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
    The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
    back-to-top-scroll