154 / 336
to grant a decree of divorce
a vinculo,
and whether the
decree will be recognised by the Irish Courts. It has
long been established that our Courts will investigate
foreign judgements where the same were decided with-
out jurisdiction. In this case, the English. Court had no
jurisdiction over Alice and her husband, consequently
the Irish Courts cannot treat the decree of divorce
a
vinculo
as other than invalid, as the decree was ob-
tained by duress and fraud. As this decree was granted
without jurisdiction, our Courts will and must treat
the decree as invalid. Alice, is accordingly the person
entitled to claim as wife under the Succession Act,
1965.
The appeal is consequently unanimously dismissed
by the Supreme Court.
Re: Henry Gaffney,
deed.—Alice
Gaffney v Lydia
Gaffney, Supreme Court (O'Higgins C. J., Walsh,
Henchy, Griffin and Parke J. J.) — Separate judge-
ments by Walsh J., Henchy J. and Griffin J. —- unre-
ported— 11 April 1975.
A potential beneficiary, under a discretionary
trust is entitled, as of right, at his own expense to
be furnished with copies of trust accounts and
details of the investment of the trust fund.
By a settlement of March, 1956 made between the
Settlor and 3 Trustees of the settlement, the settlor paid
£40,000 to the Trustees to hold and invest at their dis-
cretion, and to pay such part of the income and cap-
ital as they shall think fit for the support, mainten-
ance and education of any future husband or children
of Sophia Pain (daughter of the settlor Augustus
Alexander Chaine Nickson) and any wife and children
of Augustus Terence Chaine Nickson (the plaintiff).
The defined members of the family were — Rachel
Halley Chaine Nickson (the settlor's wife), the plain-
tiff (his son), Horace Pain (his son-in-law), and his
grand-daughters, Audrey Kate Paine and Jennifer Jaye
Pain. Another clause provided that the Trustees could
receive an annual remuneration of £300 or 1 0% of the
gross annual income of the trust, whichever was the
greater. The settlement was duly declared an Irish
settlement. As the Rule against Perpetuities had been
overlooked, a supplemental deed in accordance with
it was made in April, 1961. In 1963, Rachel Nickson
retired as trustee, and the Bank of Ireland were ap-
pointed substitute trustees.
In March, 1973 the plaintiff's solicitor asked the
Bank for copies of the accounts of the Trust for 3
years. The Bank stated that it was not the Bank's
practice to submit a copy of the Trust Accounts to any
of the persons entitled to benefit under a Discretionary
Trust. The Trust Fund is invested in a private unlimit-
ed company called Muckmore Investments which does
not distribute any of its surplus income by way of
dividends. The Company has purchased property worth
£81,000 and holds marketable securities to the value of
£176,000. In view of the Bank's persistent refusal to
provide copies of the Accounts, the plaintiff has asked
the Court to determine what information as a poten-
tial Beneficirry under the Settlement he is entitled to.
Plaintiff's counsel contends that his client is entitled
as of right o he information as to the Investments
held by Muckmore Investments and as to Remuner-
ation paid to the trustees.
It is beyond question, as the textbooks proclaim,
that when a Beneficiary has a vested interest in a Trust
Fund so that he has a right to the payment of income,
the Trustees must at all times give him full and ac-
curate information as to the amount and state of the
Trust Property, and permit him or his solicitor to in-
spect the Accounts and vouchers relating to the Trust,
and provide copies subject to his paying the customary
fees. The Defendant Trustees tried to contend that, as
they had complete discretion, unless there were .an
allegation of misconduct, the plaintiff had no right to
any information. This is contrary to the basic concept
of a Trustee being accountable for the management of
the trust fund. In this case the beneficiaries have a clear
interest in getting informaion as to how the Trust Fund
has been invested.
Accordingly a potential Beneficiary under a Discret-
ionary Trust is entitled, at his own expense to be fur-
nished with copies of the Trust Account end to details
of the Investments in the Trust Fund and to the bal-
ance sheet and profit and loss account of Muckmore
Investments Ltd. A declaration will be made accord-
ingly.
(Chaine Nickson v Bank of Ireland, Brett and
Lewis Crosby — Kenny
J. — u n r e p o r t ed — 24
April, 1 9 7 5 ).
A forgeiture of a lease is not effected, unless the
denial of the landlord's title affects the whole
land demised, and not part of it.
In 1971, the Irish Sisters of Charity put up for sale
the complex of buildings constituting St. Vincent's
Hospital in St. Stephen's Green, Dublin These build-
ings became vacant wh en the hospital moved to new
premises in Elm Park, Merrion Road, It was decided
that the sale should be by tender, rnd a brochure was
sent by courtesy to the plaintiff, who owned the fee
simple estate in 60, St. Stephen's Green. It is to be
noted that it was the leasehold interest that was being
sold. The leasehold interest of the Sisters in No. 60
arises from a lease of 29th August, 1946, by which the
plaintiff demised to the named nuns the premises for
a. term of 30 years at the yearly rent of £295. The
present defendant is the sole survivor. The defendant
nuns claimed- that they owned a plot at the back of
No. 60 under a lease of July, 1933 from the Earl of
Pembroke for 10,000 years. This the plaintiff contested,
and it resulted in an acriminious and unyielding cor-
respondence. The basis of the claim, which Butler J.
conceded, was that the defendant nun had worked a
forfeiture by disclaiming the landlord's title to the
disputed piece of ground.
The defendant has repeatedly contended that the
plaintiff erroneously included the disputed area in the
1946 lease. The net question i s :—Wh e re a tenant for
a term of years asserts in writing that the landlord
152