In the case of Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd, it has been suggested
that “the right to seek disclosure of trust documents was an aspect of the
court’s inherent jurisdiction to supervise and if necessary to intervene in
the administration of trusts and did not depend on the right or claim of a
beneficiary to a proprietary interest in the trust property”. Discuss.
In the case of Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd,1 it has been suggested that “the
right to seek disclosure of trust documents was an aspect of the court’s inherent
jurisdiction to supervise and if necessary to intervene in the administration of trusts
and did not depend on the right or claim of a beneficiary to a proprietary interest in
the trust property”.2 In order to determine the extent to which this proposition is true,
this essay will discuss and critically analyse the issues and conclusions raised by the
case.
“Precisely who is entitled to require such trust documents has been a matter of some
controversy”.3 “When the Trustee Bill was proceeding through Parliament, there were
attempts to amend it in order to give more protection to the beneficiaries”. 4 However,
these attempts failed. Academics have argued that as a result, “the beneficiaries
have limited rights to information from the trustees”. 5 Although there has “never been
any doubt about the right of beneficiaries of both fixed trusts and small discretionary
trusts to require information as to the state of the trust property and to any dealings
with it and the corresponding trust documents; nor was any distinction drawn
between beneficiaries with interests in possession and those whose interests had
either not yet vested or had not yet vested in possession”, 6 “doubts had been
expressed both as to whether the right was or should be available to every single
potential member of the enormous classes of beneficiaries which many modern
discretionary trusts now have and as to the position of persons who are not among
the actual beneficiaries of a discretionary trust but are merely among the possible
1
[2003] 2 AC 709
2
http://www.maitlandchambers.com/Cases/Detail.asp?CaseID=469 accessed on 7 November 2009
3
Oakley, A.J. Parker and Mellows: The Modern Law of Trusts 9th edition (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2008) p 648.
4
Clements, R. and Abass, A. Complete Equity and Trusts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) p 114.
5
Ibid.
6
Oakley, A.J. op cit. p 651.
1
that “the right to seek disclosure of trust documents was an aspect of the
court’s inherent jurisdiction to supervise and if necessary to intervene in
the administration of trusts and did not depend on the right or claim of a
beneficiary to a proprietary interest in the trust property”. Discuss.
In the case of Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd,1 it has been suggested that “the
right to seek disclosure of trust documents was an aspect of the court’s inherent
jurisdiction to supervise and if necessary to intervene in the administration of trusts
and did not depend on the right or claim of a beneficiary to a proprietary interest in
the trust property”.2 In order to determine the extent to which this proposition is true,
this essay will discuss and critically analyse the issues and conclusions raised by the
case.
“Precisely who is entitled to require such trust documents has been a matter of some
controversy”.3 “When the Trustee Bill was proceeding through Parliament, there were
attempts to amend it in order to give more protection to the beneficiaries”. 4 However,
these attempts failed. Academics have argued that as a result, “the beneficiaries
have limited rights to information from the trustees”. 5 Although there has “never been
any doubt about the right of beneficiaries of both fixed trusts and small discretionary
trusts to require information as to the state of the trust property and to any dealings
with it and the corresponding trust documents; nor was any distinction drawn
between beneficiaries with interests in possession and those whose interests had
either not yet vested or had not yet vested in possession”, 6 “doubts had been
expressed both as to whether the right was or should be available to every single
potential member of the enormous classes of beneficiaries which many modern
discretionary trusts now have and as to the position of persons who are not among
the actual beneficiaries of a discretionary trust but are merely among the possible
1
[2003] 2 AC 709
2
http://www.maitlandchambers.com/Cases/Detail.asp?CaseID=469 accessed on 7 November 2009
3
Oakley, A.J. Parker and Mellows: The Modern Law of Trusts 9th edition (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2008) p 648.
4
Clements, R. and Abass, A. Complete Equity and Trusts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) p 114.
5
Ibid.
6
Oakley, A.J. op cit. p 651.
1
