Re Londonderry's Settlement
Encyclopedia
Re Londonderry's Settlement [1965] Ch 918 is an English trusts law
case concerning the duty of trustees to provide information to beneficiaries. It has been heavily criticised and possibly doubted by Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd
.
English trusts law
English trusts law is the original and foundational law of trusts in the world, and a unique contribution of English law to the legal system. Trusts are part of the law of property, and arise where one person gives assets English trusts law is the original and foundational law of trusts in the...
case concerning the duty of trustees to provide information to beneficiaries. It has been heavily criticised and possibly doubted by Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd
Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd
Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd [2003] is a trusts law case, concerning the duty of trustees.-Facts:Mr Schimdt wanted disclosure of accounts and information from a trust set up, managed by Rosewood Trust Ltd, by his father, who had died without a will...
.
Facts
A beneficiary did not like the small sums proposed to be distributed to her. She wanted information about the reasons for the decision.Judgment
The Court of Appeal held that there was no need for disclosure of reasons, because it could cause family strife, fruitless litigation or make the trustees’ role impossible.See also
- Schmidt v Rosewood Trust LtdSchmidt v Rosewood Trust LtdSchmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd [2003] is a trusts law case, concerning the duty of trustees.-Facts:Mr Schimdt wanted disclosure of accounts and information from a trust set up, managed by Rosewood Trust Ltd, by his father, who had died without a will...
[2003] UKPC 26 - Hartigan Nominees v Rydge (1992) 29 NSWLR 405, Kirby P said it would not be unduly burdensome for professional trustees to provide reasoned decisions and that would be likely to cause less strife than no reasons at all.
- Hawkesley v May [1955] 3 WLR 569, obligation to inform beneficiaries of their status as beneficiaries when they turn 18.
- Re Manisty’s Settlement [1971] Ch 17, no necessary duty to inform objects of a power of their status, only the primary objects, who are identifiable only as a question of fact
- Murphy v Murphy [1999] 1 WLR 283, a settlor had to provide information to a discretionary beneficiary. A more remote beneficiary may not have gained disclosure.