For many high-net-worth and ultra-high-net-worth families, trusts are an important part of long-term succession planning, asset protection and intergenerational wealth management. When a relationship breaks down, however, those structures may come under close scrutiny in financial remedy proceedings.

Amy Smethurst, Solicitor in the family team at JMW, consider the recent High Court decision in TR v ST (Letters of Request) [2026] EWHC 1785 (Fam) and discusses this useful reminder that the family court will look carefully at whether a trust is, in reality, a resource available to one spouse.

The case concerned the wife’s application for a letter of request to be sent to the judicial authorities of an EU member state. The purpose was to obtain evidence and documents from a representative of the corporate trustees of an offshore trust. The application arose within financial remedy proceedings following the parties’ separation in 2023.

The parties had lived together from 2006, married in 2011 and had two children. The family home in England, valued in excess of £400,000, was legally owned by a company which was itself owned by the trust. The husband was entitled to occupy the property rent-free. He nevertheless asserted in his Form E that he had negligible resources and no beneficial interest in the trust property.

The trust had been settled in 2008 by the husband’s late father. It was said to be fully discretionary as to capital and income and to own 48 mortgage-free rental properties. The husband was identified as a secondary beneficiary. Initially, the only documents provided by the husband were the trust deed and an organogram. When the wife sought further information, the husband stated that he had no documentation relating to the trust in his possession.

At the First Appointment, the District Judge ordered the parties to send a joint request to the trustees for trust documents and information. The trustees initially failed to respond and later refused disclosure, stating that they were not obliged or authorised to provide the documents. Peel J described that response as “somewhat unhelpful”.

Why trust documents matter

The central issue was whether the trust should be treated as a resource available to the husband. In financial remedy cases, the court may consider not only assets legally owned by a spouse, but also resources that are likely to be made available to them. The relevant question was whether the trustees would be likely to advance capital immediately or in the foreseeable future.

That question could not be answered fairly without proper disclosure. The wife was not asking the court to assume that the trust assets belonged to the husband. She was asking for targeted documents to help the court understand the trust, its assets, the husband’s position within it, and the extent to which trust resources had been, or might be, available to him.

Peel J granted the application. He was satisfied that the documents sought were relevant, proportionate and central to the fair disposal of the proceedings. Importantly, this was not a fishing expedition. The requests were specific and followed earlier, unsuccessful attempts to obtain the information directly from the trustees.

The judgment also carries a practical warning. Peel J observed that the husband and trustees had been less than forthcoming. If relevant information is not provided, the court may be driven to consider drawing adverse inferences. In other words, opacity can create litigation risk, even where a trust has been validly established and properly administered.

Practical takeaways for families, trustees and advisers

The case does not suggest that every trust will be treated as a matrimonial resource. Nor does it undermine the legitimate use of trusts in succession planning. What it does demonstrate is that, where a spouse appears to benefit from trust assets, the family court may expect a clear evidential picture before deciding what resources are available.

For family offices and private client advisers, the first lesson is to stress-test existing structures before there is a dispute. A trust settled for entirely legitimate reasons may still become contentious if records are incomplete, historic decisions are poorly documented, or beneficiaries’ expectations do not match the formal legal position.

The second lesson is that governance matters. Trustees should understand the risk of being drawn into family litigation, particularly where trust assets have funded housing, lifestyle or business interests for a beneficiary and their family. A carefully administered discretionary trust, supported by consistent records and independent decision-making, is better placed to withstand scrutiny than one where the practical reality appears informal or opaque.

The third lesson is that divorce and succession planning should not be treated as separate conversations. Pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements, shareholder arrangements, letters of wishes, trust governance and estate planning may all need to work together. Families who wait until separation has occurred often have fewer options, more uncertainty and greater cost.

The final lesson is one of strategy. A refusal to engage with reasonable, targeted disclosure requests may feel protective in the short term, but it can be counterproductive. Where the issue is whether a trust is a resource, constructive and carefully managed disclosure may reduce the risk of adverse inferences and help the court reach a fair conclusion on reliable evidence.

How JMW Signature can help

JMW Signature is designed for clients whose personal, family and financial affairs require joined-up, discreet and forward-looking advice. For families with trusts, international assets, family businesses or inherited wealth, that often means bringing together family law, private wealth, tax, trust and corporate expertise at an early stage.

The aim is not to create structures that avoid proper scrutiny. It is to help families understand risk, document intentions clearly, preserve wealth responsibly and reduce the scope for avoidable disputes. TR v ST is a timely reminder that privacy, planning and transparency need to be carefully balanced.

If you are a family member, trustee, family office or professional adviser concerned about how trust structures, inherited wealth or international assets may be viewed on divorce, our specialist family team can help you review the position and plan with confidence.