Disclosure of trust information: discretionary or principle-based jurisdiction?

In Erceg v Erceg [2017] NZSC 28, the Supreme Court of New Zealand (Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, and O’Regan JJ) considered the vexed issues surrounding the disclosure of information relating to a trust. In a unanimous judgment delivered by O’Regan J, the court approved the decision o...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Hafeez-Baig, MJ, English, J
Format: Journal article
Language:English
Published: Oxford University Press 2017
_version_ 1826309200802742272
author Hafeez-Baig, MJ
English, J
author_facet Hafeez-Baig, MJ
English, J
author_sort Hafeez-Baig, MJ
collection OXFORD
description In Erceg v Erceg [2017] NZSC 28, the Supreme Court of New Zealand (Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, and O’Regan JJ) considered the vexed issues surrounding the disclosure of information relating to a trust. In a unanimous judgment delivered by O’Regan J, the court approved the decision of the Privy Council in Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd [2003] 2 AC 709, and set out in detail the correct approach to be adopted in determining whether to order trustees to disclose trust information to beneficiaries. However, contrary to what is arguably the orthodox view, the court rejected the notion that the inherent supervisory jurisdiction to order disclosure involves the exercise of discretion. Rather it was ‘better seen as a jurisdiction that must be exercised in accordance with principle, after careful assessment of the factors relevant to the disclosure sought by the particular beneficiary’.
first_indexed 2024-03-07T07:30:35Z
format Journal article
id oxford-uuid:90a81ca3-aaa7-47e4-b2f7-98f8b86cacee
institution University of Oxford
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-07T07:30:35Z
publishDate 2017
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format dspace
spelling oxford-uuid:90a81ca3-aaa7-47e4-b2f7-98f8b86cacee2023-01-18T18:14:58ZDisclosure of trust information: discretionary or principle-based jurisdiction? Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:90a81ca3-aaa7-47e4-b2f7-98f8b86caceeEnglishSymplectic ElementsOxford University Press2017Hafeez-Baig, MJEnglish, JIn Erceg v Erceg [2017] NZSC 28, the Supreme Court of New Zealand (Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, and O’Regan JJ) considered the vexed issues surrounding the disclosure of information relating to a trust. In a unanimous judgment delivered by O’Regan J, the court approved the decision of the Privy Council in Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd [2003] 2 AC 709, and set out in detail the correct approach to be adopted in determining whether to order trustees to disclose trust information to beneficiaries. However, contrary to what is arguably the orthodox view, the court rejected the notion that the inherent supervisory jurisdiction to order disclosure involves the exercise of discretion. Rather it was ‘better seen as a jurisdiction that must be exercised in accordance with principle, after careful assessment of the factors relevant to the disclosure sought by the particular beneficiary’.
spellingShingle Hafeez-Baig, MJ
English, J
Disclosure of trust information: discretionary or principle-based jurisdiction?
title Disclosure of trust information: discretionary or principle-based jurisdiction?
title_full Disclosure of trust information: discretionary or principle-based jurisdiction?
title_fullStr Disclosure of trust information: discretionary or principle-based jurisdiction?
title_full_unstemmed Disclosure of trust information: discretionary or principle-based jurisdiction?
title_short Disclosure of trust information: discretionary or principle-based jurisdiction?
title_sort disclosure of trust information discretionary or principle based jurisdiction
work_keys_str_mv AT hafeezbaigmj disclosureoftrustinformationdiscretionaryorprinciplebasedjurisdiction
AT englishj disclosureoftrustinformationdiscretionaryorprinciplebasedjurisdiction