Herman Baryohai Benjamin v Raymond Ephraim Benjamin & Anor
[2024] EWHC 215 (Ch)
Gavin Littaur v Alistair Collett & Ors
28 July 2023
[2023] EWHC 2225 (Ch)
High Court
Someone sued the managers of their family's money, saying they weren't transparent enough. The court said the managers had already given lots of information and the lawsuit was pointless. The person who sued has to pay everyone else's legal bills.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Gavin Littaur, representing himself, filed a Part 8 claim against the trustees of the Littaur Marriage Settlement 1948 for an account and inquiry into the trust's administration.
- •The dispute centers around the alleged lack of transparency and potential undervaluation in the sale of a property.
- •Mr. Littaur and his sister, Dr. Glen Fox, are the beneficiaries of the settlement.
- •The first defendant, Mr. Alistair Collett, was a trustee and the solicitor for Mr. Littaur's late father.
- •Extensive correspondence between Mr. Littaur and the defendants spanning many years is central to the case.
- •Mr. Littaur's communications were often accusatory and intemperate.
- •The defendants provided detailed information on the settlement's assets and transactions over the years.
Legal Principles
Beneficiaries have a right to see trust accounts, but trustees only need to account for what they have done with trust assets, not necessarily with formal annual statements.
RNLI & Ors v Headley and McCole [2016] EWHC 1948 (ChD) and Armitage v Nurse [1998] Ch 241, CA
Trustees are not required to answer never-ending, lengthy and voluminous inquiries beyond what is reasonable.
Lewin on Trusts, paragraph 21-038, and Gray v Guardian Trust Australia [2003] NSWSC 704
Capacity is presumed under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and there must be evidence to rebut this presumption.
Mental Capacity Act 2005
Outcomes
The claim for an account and inquiry was dismissed.
The court found that the defendants had provided sufficient information repeatedly over the years to satisfy their duty to account, exceeding the legal requirements. Mr. Littaur's dissatisfaction with certain transactions did not justify further accounting.
Dr. Glen Fox was added to the proceedings for costs purposes only.
Dr. Fox's intervention was deemed necessary due to Mr. Littaur's actions and his representation of her views, which she disagreed with.
Mr. Littaur was ordered to pay the defendants' and Dr. Fox's costs.
Mr. Littaur's claim was deemed unnecessary and his conduct in correspondence was considered intemperate and baseless. His actions necessitated Dr. Fox's intervention. Costs were to follow the event.