fbpx

Trustees Who Act in Good Faith Protected by Court

4th October 2016 By Arman Khosravi

Beneficiaries are frequently unsatisfied with the actions (or often, the lack of action) of the executors of estates or administrators of family trusts, and the animosities that can arise are compounded if the beneficiaries feel they are being kept in the dark as regards the administration of the trust or estate.

Where a discretionary trust is set up, the trustees have the right to administer the assets of the trust in a discretionary fashion, which can lead to claims of unfairness and bias from those who feel that they are disadvantaged.

The dangers implicit in such arrangements are illustrated by a recent case which involved a trust set up under the will of a woman who died in 2013. Her will left her assets in a discretionary trust under the control of her solicitors.

There was a falling out between one of the woman’s daughters and the solicitors, who had refused to supply her with copies of the trust accounts on the ground that she was a beneficiary and the information she requested was confidential to the trustees and executor. The solicitors considered that to disclose the information to one of the woman’s daughters would necessitate disclosure to the other and, given that the relationship between the sisters was difficult, this would be unwise. A legal battle ensued regarding disclosure, with the end result that – after considerable legal costs, including taking barristers’ opinions – the trustees divulged the requested information.

The beneficiary then sought recovery of her legal costs. She went to court claiming that, since she had ‘won the point’, the trustees’ own legal costs should be paid by them, not from the assets of the trust.

The court found that the trustees had acted in good faith throughout and concluded that the legal costs should be met from the trust assets.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Award That Requires Borrowing Made Into Court Order

17th May, 2024 By

Disagreements between separating couples all too often result in litigation that substantially reduces the assets available to them, as was illustrated by a case that recently reached the High Court. At issue was whether awards made by arbitrators in financial remedy proceedings can be made into court orders even if that would require one of the parties to borrow money. The couple had previously had a relationship lasting a few years before resuming their relationship in 2015. They had two children before separating again in 2019. Following their separation, the...

Inheritance Disputes – Costs Risks Can Be Reduced

15th May, 2024 By

Arguments about what someone promised before their death can lead to significant legal costs. However, if faced with a claim against the estate, there may be steps the beneficiaries or executors can take to reduce the risks, as a recent High Court case illustrated. A man had left a farmhouse and agricultural land in Cornwall to his wife, with whom he had also jointly owned a neighbouring area of land. After his death, one of the couple's daughters and her husband claimed that he had told them he wanted them...

Share Rounding Error Does Not Prevent CGT Relief

13th May, 2024 By

There are often very specific rules that must be complied with in order to claim tax reliefs, but if a small mistake arises, the courts may be able to provide assistance. In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that an investor was entitled to Entrepreneurs' Relief on the disposal of his shares in a company, despite owning one share fewer than he needed to qualify for it. The investor had agreed to purchase 5 per cent of the shares in the company for £500,000. He wished to own...

Wife Entitled to Maintenance Until Sale of Family Home

10th May, 2024 By

When divorcing couples disagree on how assets should be divided, the courts will seek to arrive at a fair outcome for both parties. In deciding how the proceeds of sale of a former couple's home should be apportioned, the Family Court agreed with the wife that she should receive maintenance payments until the sale took place. The couple had married in 2006. Following a brief separation, they had reconciled for two years before finally separating in 2022. The husband and wife both contended that they should be entitled to about...