cheap lenses australia

Supreme Court: disclosure denied to beneficiary in billion-dollar Erceg case

The Supreme Court has dismissed Ivan Erceg’s appeal, refusing his application for an order to disclose trust documents.


The case is the culmination of a long-standing family feud involving two trusts set up by Michael Erceg, a wealthy businessman who died 10 years ago in a helicopter accident. Ivan Erceg, the brother of the deceased, was a beneficiary of both trusts, but received nothing when the trusts were wound up in 2010. Analysts had put the value of the trusts at $1.2 billion in 2006.

Application for disclosure of trust documents

Ivan Erceg had sought disclosure of a number of trust documents, including the trust deeds and financial statements for both trusts. He was not a named beneficiary but was one of a class of discretionary beneficiaries and also one of a class of final beneficiaries (of both trusts).

Useful guidance on the principles involved in disclosure applications

The Court noted that the matters that need to be evaluated in disclosure applications include:

* the nature of the documents sought (in particular, whether confidentiality issues arise and whether disclosure will require disclosure of the reasons of the trustees for decisions made by them);
* the context of the request;
* the reason for which the beneficiary seeks disclosure;
* the nature of the requesting beneficiary’s interests;
* any practical difficulties in providing the information;
* whether there are issues of personal or commercial confidentiality;
* the likely impact of disclosure on the trustees, the other beneficiaries, the settlor and third parties; and
* whether measures can be taken to protect confidentiality of disclosed documents and to ensure they are used only for the purpose for which they were disclosed.

In Mr Ercegs’ case, although a primary discretionary beneficiary would “normally have a good case for disclosure of the trust deed and financial statements relating to the trust” his conduct gave the court genuine reason for concern as to what he would do with the information if he received it. Noting that the risk of harassment by Mr Erceg in relation to the other beneficiaries was “significant”, the Court said the benefits of disclosure were outweighed by the potential detriment.

Did Ivan Erceg have standing to bring the case?

The Supreme Court ruled that despite losing the appeal, Mr Erceg did have standing to bring the case to court and that his bankrupt status did not affect this.

No Responses

Be the first to leave a comment!

Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.


Recent comments

  • Peter: When you have more than one job all your income is added up and you pay tax on the total income amount. For...
  • Joanne Martin: Hi Would you be able to email me to discuss a small company that is an LTC which I need some advice on...
  • Rizwana Saheed: You are on the right track that there is an exemption when employees work overtime but whether or not...
  • bryan: as a group of employees we get paid meal money if we exceed 11hrs on any day. Employer says he wants to tax...
  • linda: My mother is 94 and has dementia. With govt assisted carers she is still living in a home gifted within the...
  • Sharon: Hi Daniel, Can you please advise how owners of a profit-making LTC pay themselves? The owners used to pay...
  • Another Anne: My Dad is in care on full subsidy. I am EPOA. Are we able to gift some money to my brother in UK so...
  • Twagilayesu Isaya: I agree with the author of this article that Inland Revenue Department need to provide clear...
  • Quinn: Hi. I would like some clarification regarding the valuation of the investments component of the owners basis...
  • QROPS Pensions: Interesting piece of writing, you always write the most useful content & TalkTax is no exception...

Upcoming Events

  • No events.


In the past 12 months, do you think the amount of IRD investigations being undertaken has?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...


    For the moment, we have no authors