Sisters tussle over trust

A court decision may have strengthened the case of a woman wanting details about the wealthy trust that supports her disabled sister.

Both sisters are discretionary beneficiaries of the trust, but quadriplegic Annette Jamieson, who lives in Sydney, effectively controls it.

Her sister Prudence Addleman, a businesswoman living in England, apparently knew nothing about the trust until she received more than $4 million from it in 2002. Jamieson intended the distribution to be Addleman’s final share, but Addleman says she never accepted it on that basis and wants more information about the trust.

A Court of Appeal decision released yesterday could help Addleman’s case by putting into evidence archival records from New Zealand and Panama about a string of companies that could be owned by the Jamieson family.

The family had lived in Sydney where Jamieson, now in her 60s, suffered a spinal injury from a swimming accident in 1972, when she was 19.

The local council eventually paid out on Jamieson’s negligence claim in 1981 for a then record sum of A$1,029,000.

Jamieson’s father invested the money and a large chunk of it was used to buy 42 hectares of land in Howick, Auckland, that was subdivided and resold very profitably.

Courts have inferred that Addleman’s application seeking information about the trust is the preliminary step to her making a claim for another distribution from it, if the trust included money from family sources other than the payout to her sister.

If some of the money came from her father, for instance, she might have a stronger claim.

Regardless of whether Addleman does claim another distribution, the original source of the capital was relevant to decide whether she can get more information about the trust, the Court of Appeal said.

Although Jamieson said the trust was to protect her welfare, and Addleman was a ‘‘backstop’’ beneficiary in the event Jamieson died early, the trust deed does not say that, or give any advantage to one over the other.

‘‘That may well be what was intended but the deed does not say it,’’ the court said.

The case is now expected to go back to the High Court to decide Addleman’s claim for more information.