The Court had previously ruled on two applications for disclosure made by the Second Defendant in the course of Beddoe proceedings commenced by the Plaintiffs (“The Trustees”). The Court was now asked to consider: (1) A first summons seeking inspection of a number of documents said to have been mentioned in the Trustees’ evidence in reply; and (2) A second summons seeking the production of various categories of documents pursuant to the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction to administer trusts.
In respect of the first summons, it was noted that the request must relate to a document to which “reference is made” in the affidavit in the sense of a “direct allusion”. However, the Court will not order the production of a document unless it is of the opinion that its production is necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs. The Judge dismissed the First Summons as the requests did not relate to documents to which a direct allusion was made, save in one case where production of the requested documents was not necessary for disposing fairly of the matter or for saving costs.
To continue reading full articles in PDF format:
Between: (1) Trustee 1; (2) Trustee 2; (3) Trustee 3; (4) Trustee 4; -and- (1) the Attorney General; (2) Respondent 2; (3) Respondent 3  SC (Bda) 52 Com (5 June 2014)