The Gazette 1975

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 ). 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 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.

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-