Would you? Might you?

As part of the long-running litigation in Dawson-Damer, the Privy Council has decided that a trustee’s decision that fails to take into account relevant information will only be overturned if the trustee would or might have made a different decision if it had considered that information. This is the case even if the trustee acted in breach of trust by failing to take that information into account.

What does this mean for trustees? Can they breathe a huge sigh of collective relief that even if they act in breach of trust they might be off the hook? Probably not so fast – if all a disgruntled beneficiary needs to prove is that the trustee might have made a different decision if it had considered the relevant information, this may prove to be a low threshold.

In this session, Paul Hardwick (Macfarlanes), Alasdair Davidson (Bedell Cristin) and Donna Shorto (Trident Trust) will consider best practice for trustee decision making. They will discuss:

• The Context to the Privy Council’s decision, including the facts of the case.
• When a trustee will be acting in breach of trust for failing to consider relevant information when making a decision – how does a court decide what’s relevant?
• What does the court mean by “might” have made a different decision?
• Best practice steps for trustees to take to ensure they have the relevant information they need before they make any decisions.