Do Beneficiaries Have a Right to Information in Cyprus International Trusts?

A Narrative with Emerging Case Practice

By Dr Pavlos Neofytou Kourtellos and Dr Marina Himoni

Cyprus International Trusts (CITs) are widely recognised as sophisticated legal structures, combining asset protection, flexibility, and a strong commitment to confidentiality.

Yet, an important and often misunderstood question arises: do beneficiaries have a right to access information about the trust?

The answer is nuanced. Under Cyprus law, the beneficiary’s position is deliberately restrained, reflecting a broader policy choice to prioritise controlled transparency over automatic disclosure.

From Proprietary Right to Judicial Discretion

Traditionally, trust law approached this issue through the lens of proprietary rights. Beneficiaries, having an equitable interest in the trust property, were thought to possess a corresponding right to inspect trust documents.

Modern jurisprudence has moved away from this model. The landmark decision in Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd redefined the framework: access to information is not a matter of ownership, but one of judicial discretion, exercised as part of the court’s supervisory jurisdiction over trusts.

Cyprus has embraced this approach, embedding it within a statutory environment that places particular emphasis on confidentiality.

The Cyprus Position: Confidentiality as a Core Principle

There is very limited reported Cyprus case law directly addressing beneficiaries’ rights to information in CITs. This is not accidental—it reflects both the confidential nature of trust structures and the relatively small volume of published trust litigation.

Within this framework, trustees—particularly professional trustees—are expected to safeguard sensitive information, including:

1. internal deliberations
2. settlor communications
3. strategic trust decisions

The legal structure therefore does not support automatic disclosure, but instead establishes a controlled, court-supervised gateway.

Emerging Case Practice: The Shcherbinina Proceedings

This doctrinal position is now being tested and clarified in practice. A notable recent example is M. Shcherbinina v Abacus (Nominees) Limited, a case arising from interim applications in the context of a Cyprus-based trust administered by a professional trustee.

While a final judgment on the merits of disclosure is still pending, the proceedings provide a rare and valuable insight into how Cypriot courts are currently approaching beneficiary access to information.

Importantly:

1. A substantive hearing on disclosure has already taken place
2. A final decision is awaited
3. The case is likely to become one of the few modern Cyprus authorities on this issue

Disclosure vs Confidentiality: The Court’s Balancing Exercise

In its procedural handling to date, the court has not treated beneficiary status as creating any automatic right to disclosure. Instead, consistent with Schmidt, the issue has been approached through:

1. necessity
2. proportionality
3. judicial control

The key question is whether the information sought is required for the fair determination of the dispute, rather than whether the beneficiary has an abstract entitlement.

At the same time, the proceedings reaffirm an important principle:
confidentiality is not absolute. Where there is a credible basis to question the administration of the trust, the court retains the power to order disclosure. The challenge lies in striking the appropriate balance between preserving confidentiality and ensuring trustee accountability.

Why This Matters

The pending decision in Shcherbinina is of particular significance. It has the potential to crystallise, within a Cyprus-specific context, principles that have so far been derived primarily from persuasive common law authorities.

Whether the court ultimately adopts a broader or more restrictive approach, the judgment is likely to become a key reference point for future disputes involving beneficiary information rights.

Key Takeaway

Under a Cyprus International Trust, beneficiaries do not have an automatic right to information. Access is controlled by the courts and will be granted only where necessary to ensure the proper administration of the trust. The beneficiary’s position is therefore best understood as part of a carefully calibrated legal relationship—one that balances confidentiality with accountability.

Disclaimer

The authors disclose that their firm is instructed on behalf of the applicant/beneficiary in the proceedings of Marina Vladimirovna Shcherbinina v Abacus (Nominees) Limited.

This article is intended solely as a general legal analysis of the issues discussed and does not constitute legal advice or commentary on the merits of the case, which remains pending before the court.