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

    Freeths—Ruth Clare

    Freeths—Ruth Clare

    National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

    Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

    Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

    Partner appointed head of family team

    mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

    mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

    Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

    NEWS
    Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
    The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
    Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
    The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
    The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
    back-to-top-scroll