Jane Wilmot-Smith v Hugh Patrick Burstall & Anor

Trustees must keep proper records and account to beneficiaries for what they have done with trust assets. A beneficiary’s right to information and documents is supervised through the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The court has a discretion as to whether disclosure should be ordered, and, if so, its scope and form.

Disclosure must remain reasonable and proportionate. The court may refuse further disclosure where the beneficiary already has sufficient information to assess and vindicate any rights, the enquiries have become lengthy and unfocused, relevant documents are unavailable because of delay, and further searches are unlikely to produce useful material. Trustees are not required to answer never-ending enquiries that impose disproportionate demands on their time and resources.

The claimant, a residuary beneficiary of an estate, brought a Part 8 claim against two executors and trustees seeking disclosure of estate and partnership documents under CPR 64. The estate had been administered over many years, and the partnership operated the deceased’s farming business before being wound up.

By the hearing, most requests had been met or abandoned. The remaining issues concerned historic share transactions, dividends and related documents. The central issue was whether the court should exercise its discretion to order further disclosure despite the extensive information already provided, the passage of time and the limited prospect of obtaining anything further.

1. The claim was dismissed in substance. No further order for production of estate or partnership documents was made.

2. Trustees owe a duty to keep proper records and account to beneficiaries. The duty is to account for what they have done with trust assets, rather than merely to provide financial statements. The right to an account and to inspect trust documents forms part of the court’s inherent jurisdiction to supervise and, where appropriate, intervene in trust administration, as explained in RNLI v Headley [2016] EWHC 1948 (Ch) and Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd [2003] 2 AC 709.

3. The court has a discretion whether disclosure should be ordered and, if so, what should be disclosed and how. Disclosure should enable a beneficiary to appreciate, verify and, if necessary, vindicate existing rights. A beneficiary may seek reasonable information and supporting documents, but trustees need not answer lengthy and voluminous enquiries beyond what is reasonable having regard to their available time and resources.

4. The claimant had received, or had access to, substantial estate and partnership documentation. The documents supplied after issue of the claim had resolved the underlying enquiries, and the claimant no longer pursued several categories. The remaining requests concerned events approximately twenty years earlier, when further documents were unlikely to be available or useful.

5. In those circumstances, requiring further searches, explanations or witness statements would be disproportionate. The court declined to exercise its discretion to order further disclosure. The observation that no limitation period applies to a claim for an account in common form, citing Henchley v Thompson [2017] EWHC 225 (Ch), did not alter the outcome.