PT-2025-BRS-000081 - [2025] EWHC 2128 (Ch)

The problem for the claimants is that they do not know who were the original trustees of the first trust, nor what its terms were. As to the trustees, the obvious candidates are the deceased and her late husband, but perhaps also a financial adviser (as with the second trust). Jason was then just 17 and so would not have been appointed. Mark could have been so appointed, and indeed he was a trustee of the third trust, though not of the second.

As to the terms of the first trust, it seems likely that the deceased wished to provide for her family, and in particular her children, just as she did in the others. This was the first such trust, and her children would be younger and in greater need of provision, than at the time of the later trusts. But that does not exclude the possibility of some benefit for others, such as charity. Given that both parents, and one of the sons, have died, and that Jason, the remaining son, is so far unmarried and without issue, the claimants would like to pay the entire proceeds of the policy to Jason. However, for reasons explained in the evidence, they have not consulted him about this.

The claim form accordingly asks for

“ … the directions of the court as to whether … they may distribute the entire trust fund to Jason.

[ … ]

4.

The claimants have not named a defendant and seek to have the court determine this matter pursuant to CPR 8.2A and CPR PD 64A, paragraph 1A.

5.

The claimants rely on … the advice of counsel having a 10-year High Court qualification … on the merits of the claim.”