Beneficiaries have a right to disclosure of trust documents for assessing entitlement, regardless of their current beneficiary status.

[1] The present appeal arises from the High Cour's grant of the responden's application for a pre-action discovery under O 24 r 7A of the Rules of 2012. The respondent had sought discovery, disclosure and/or inspection of certain trust documents in relation to or howsoever connected to the "Tee Keong Family Trust" ("the Trust"). The Trust was created by the responden's late paternal grandfather, Lim Goh Tong, who passed away in 2007. The Trust was created and established under a Deed of Trust dated 18 May 1990, entered into between one Quah Chek Tin and the appellant, a company whose business is to act as a trustee. Lim Goh Tong had three sons and three daughters. His eldest son, Lim Tee Keong, after whom the Trust is named, was the responden's father. Lim Tee Keong passed away in April 2014. Lim Goh Tong's youngest son, Lim Chee Wah, is a Director of the appellant.

[2] Up until 18 March 2014, the respondent was one of the beneficiaries under the Trust. From time to time, the respondent received benefits under the Trust. These benefits included fees, allowances, essentials such as school uniforms, stationeries and accommodation whilst the respondent was at boarding school and university abroad. With effect from 18 March 2014, the respondent was removed as a beneficiary pursuant to endorsement of Memorandum No 8. The respondent who had never seen the Trust Deed, asked for sight of the Trust Deed. He was unsuccessful.

[3] The respondent first requested vide email dated 21 July 2014 from one Gerard Lim. Gerard replied that he was not involved in the Trust Deed but indicated that he would nevertheless forward the responden's request directly to the appellant. By letter dated 19 August 2014, the appellant directed one Peter Yap Chong Chew to inform the respondent that he was no longer a discretionary beneficiary of the "Tee Keong Family Trust" and was therefore not entitled to be considered for any benefits under the Trust. The respondent was further told that he was no longer vested with a right to request for disclosure and was not entitled to disclosure. On 3 October 2014, the respondent sent an email directly to Peter Yap requesting for a copy of the Trust Deed to be provided by 7 October 2014. Peter Yap informed the respondent that he would not be responding to his request.

[4] This led to the respondent initiating proceedings in Court seeking discovery under O 24 r 7A of the Rules of Court 2012. In his application, the respondent requested a copy of the Trust Deed and any other trust deed or instrument in relation to or howsoever connected to the "Tee Keong Family Trust". In support of his application, the respondent claimed that he was entitled to have sight of the Trust Deed in order to know, inter alia, whether or not he had been properly excluded as beneficiary as was alleged by the appellant. Discovery of the Trust Deed was necessary in order that he may take proper legal advice on whether the appellant had the power to exclude the respondent as a beneficiary and/or whether the respondent had exercised its powers, if at all exists, capriciously or unreasonably. In short, the respondent intended to challenge his removal as a beneficiary pursuant to Memorandum No 8 dated 18 March 2014.

[5] The application was strongly opposed by the appellant. In his affidavitin-reply, Lim Chee Wah, paternal uncle to the respondent and one of the Directors of the appellant deposed that the respondent "cannot be allowed to have the