MUSTAQ AHMAD @ MUSHTAQ AHMAD S/O MUSTAFA v PROVIDENTIA WEALTH MANAGEMENT LTD & 6 Ors

Facts

Mr Mustafa s/o Majid Khan died intestate on 17 July 2001. The applicant, Mustaq Ahmad @ Mushtaq Ahmad s/o Mustafa, his son from his first marriage, obtained letters of administration in 2003. In earlier suits brought by the 2nd to 7th respondents (Mr Mustafa's second wife and their children), the same judge found that the estate owned 25.4% of the shares in a family company and ordered the applicant's letters of administration revoked, with a professional administrator to replace him and an account of his administration on a wilful default basis. On 14 January 2022 the court appointed Providentia Wealth Management Ltd as administrator. The applicant's appeals against those decisions were pending.

The applicant's solicitors objected to Providentia's solicitors speaking with the other beneficiaries' solicitors without them, and demanded copies of such unilateral communications. Providentia described the contacts in broad terms, including a call on 8 August 2022 between the lawyers to help it understand the matter. It said it was prepared to disclose copies, but the 2nd to 7th respondents objected. In HCF/OSP 4/2023, the applicant sought disclosure of past communications between Providentia and the 2nd to 7th respondents from 16 August 2021, and an order that all future communications between them must include his solicitors.

Issues

1. Whether a beneficiary of an estate is entitled to disclosure of communications between the administrator and other beneficiaries
2. Whether the court should order disclosure of past unilateral communications and bar future ones that excluded the applicant

Holding

Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi J dismissed the application in OSP 4. The court found it unnecessary to decide whether Providentia had properly been sued in its personal capacity, declined to give Providentia a prospective ruling on how far unilateral communications were allowed, and reserved costs for further submissions.

Reasoning

No local authority addressed the point. Relying on the Privy Council's reasoning in Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd [2003] 2 AC 709, the court held that disclosure of trust documents rests on the court's inherent supervisory jurisdiction over trusts, not on a proprietary right, and that no beneficiary is entitled to it as of right. The applicant therefore had to persuade the court to exercise its discretion, yet his evidence and submissions did not engage with the interests to be balanced.

The court found several reasons against disclosure. Communications between a trustee and a beneficiary may contain sensitive information, and separate discussions can encourage frankness, for example on the applicant's own earlier administration. Requiring every beneficiary to be copied would burden an administrator already dealing with bitter acrimony, and joint meetings proposed by Providentia had been rejected. The court gave significant weight to Providentia's view that copying everyone would hinder the administration.

The applicant's claims of prejudice were described as speculation. Each side had nominated two firms, and communicating with them before nominating was plainly necessary; there was no evidence the contacts led anyone to expect favourable treatment, and the court called his insinuations misleading and malicious. His suggestions about the 8 August 2022 call impugned the lawyers involved without evidence. What Providentia had disclosed showed nothing improper. He had also had unilateral contacts with Providentia himself. Finally, his counsel's late suggestion that he only wanted even-handed directions was at odds with a prayer that sought to restrict only the other side.

From the judgment