Lewis & Anor v Tamplin & Ors (Rev 1)

The court’s supervisory jurisdiction over trusts permits it to determine for itself whether trustees should disclose trust information to beneficiaries. A fixed-interest beneficiary will normally receive the court’s assistance unless special circumstances justify withholding information. The beneficiary need not proceed collectively with all other beneficiaries.

The principle protecting trustees’ reasons for dispositive decisions does not generally protect information and professional advice concerning administrative dealings with trust assets. Trust documents and advice obtained for the trust and paid for from trust funds are ordinarily disclosable, subject to proper limits and privilege belonging to trustees personally. Pre-action disclosure under CPR r 31.16 is narrower and requires a prima facie case.

The claimants, beneficiaries of the Tamplin Trust, sought information and documents from the defendant trustees concerning the trust’s administration, assets, professional advice, distributions and accounts. The trustees had initially disputed the claimants’ status and later supplied limited information.

The claim was brought under Part 8 as a claim for disclosure in the court’s supervisory jurisdiction. A separate application sought pre-action disclosure under CPR r 31.16. The central issues were whether disclosure was discretionary, whether all beneficiaries had to act together, whether the Londonderry principle applied to administrative decisions, and the proper scope of disclosure.

1. Claim succeeded. The court gave judgment for the claimants and ordered disclosure in the categories identified, subject to the limitations stated. Further consideration of the pre-action disclosure application was adjourned generally.
2. The jurisdiction to order disclosure of trust documents and information is an aspect of the court’s inherent supervisory jurisdiction. It is not confined to reviewing the trustees’ refusal on conventional public-law grounds. The court must exercise its own judgment as to whether disclosure should be made, to what extent and on what conditions. A fixed-interest beneficiary will ordinarily obtain the court’s assistance unless special circumstances pointing against disclosure are shown.
3. The claimants were not required to act collectively under the rule in Saunders v Vautier. That rule permits beneficiaries collectively to terminate a trust, but beneficiaries cannot, merely by acting together, control the trustees’ exercise of powers while the trust continues: see Re Brockbank and Pettigrew v Edwards.
4. The Londonderry principle protects trustees’ deliberations and reasons where the exercise of a power affects, or may affect, the respective interests of beneficiaries. It applied to the dispositive decision in Re Londonderry’s Settlement, and to the dispositive pension-trust decision in Wilson v Law Debenture Trust Corporation. It did not protect ordinary information about the administration of the trust, including dealings with trust assets, merely because documents might reveal the trustees’ reasons.
5. Disclosure was confined to trust documents and information concerning the trustees in their capacity as trustees of the Tamplin Trust. Advice obtained for the benefit of the trust and paid for from trust funds was not privileged against the beneficiaries. The beneficiaries were not entitled to compel the trustees to create documents explaining their reasoning or to answer interrogatories, although existing documents were not protected merely because they revealed reasons.
6. Under CPR r 31.16, pre-action disclosure is limited to documents which would fall within standard disclosure in anticipated proceedings. A prima facie case was established in several areas, but the application was adjourned pending the effect of the order on the claim.