Re Londonderry's Settlement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Re Londonderry's Settlement
Court Court of Appeal
Citation(s) [1965] Ch 918
Keywords
Fiduciary duties, information

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.[1]

Facts[edit]

A beneficiary did not like the small sums proposed to be distributed to her. She wanted information about the reasons for the decision.

Judgment[edit]

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[edit]

  • Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd [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.

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ [2003] UKPC 26

References[edit]

  • R Walker, ‘Some Trust Principles in the Pensions Context’ in AJ Oakley (ed) Trends in Contemporary Trust Law (Clarendon, Oxford 1996) 123, 131
  • Lord Browne-Wilkinson, ‘Equity and its relevance to superannuation today’ (Leo Cussen Institute) cited in Crown v Stevedoring Employees Retirement Fund [2003] VSC 316, [34]
  • DJ Hayton and C Mitchell, The Law of Trusts and Equitable Remedies (Sweet and Maxwell 2005) 9-295, 677, says that in ‘my firm opinion’ it is undermined by Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd on its own terms in family trusts, also citing agreement from Lord Hoffmann and Lightman J.

External links[edit]