//
you're reading...
Cases, Disclosure, Discovery, trust, Trustees, Trusts, Trusts Act

It’s mine said the trustee, all mine

The background to the appeal in Lambie v Addleman is encapsulated in [8] and [9] of the decision where the Supreme Court states as follows:

The factual background is set out in Whose advice is it?; Rights to information prevail; and Disclosure request declined – 24 years a leap too far for a beneficiary who had already received 25%.

Disclosure of documents subject to litigation privilege was denied. Of interest is the question as to who pays for this advice and the nuanced approach taken by the Supreme Court regarding “trustee information”, “personal information” and “disclosable information.”

This is set out in some detail at [43] to [59]

The Supreme Court was guided by the joint interest exception and as stated at [73]:

The Supreme Court’s judgment confirms that the common law still applies but and gives some clear pointers regarding the inferences to be drawn on who pays for the advice. The small class of beneficiaries may set this case apart from others where more commonly there is an “unconnected” trustee and a wider class of beneficiaries.

References:

  • Lambie Trustee Limited v Addleman [2021] NZSC 54

Discussion

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: