Trust disputes often arise due to differing views and personalities amongst trustees and/or trustee misconduct. Sometimes a ‘problem trustee’ is willing to retire, and retirement and replacement simply happens via the trust deed. But often that is not the case, or is not possible, and the High Court needs to step in. This article addresses the High Court’s jurisdiction around trusts and, in particular, trustee removal and replacement.
A beneficiary of a Trust does not have a right (as such) to information held by the Trust. Beneficiaries can request information from trustees, however, trustees can refuse to provide it in exercising their fiduciary duties. But what does that mean/what process do they have to go through in deciding whether or not to disclose information? If the new Trusts Bill is enacted, the law around disclosure of information to beneficiaries will be made clearer.
There have been a number of Court decisions in recent years in which it has been found that assets of a trust can be accessed for the purposes of a relationship property division. In Vervoort v Forrest & Ors the Court of Appeal refused to recognise the existence of a constructive trust, however lessons can be learned from this decision, which Leone summarises in this article.
For many years, trusts have been used as a form of asset management and/or asset protection. They are still very much a useful tool for this, however, the recent Supreme Court case of Clayton v Clayton is a warning that trusts can be “busted” in certain circumstances.
Daniel considers a recent case concerning a franchisee’s restraint of trade in the context of using business networking social media.