Offshore Trusts: Does More Complexity Mean Better Planning?
Before You Go Offshore: Why Good Planning Should Start at Home
TR v ST (Letters of Request) [2026] EWHC 1785 (Fam) is an interesting recent High Court decision involving an offshore discretionary trust, UK property and a matrimonial dispute.
It also illustrates something we regularly say at iTrust121: complexity should have a purpose. Offshore should not automatically mean better.
The case concerned a trust established outside the UK by the husband’s late father. The structure included offshore companies and corporate trustees, while significant assets were situated here in the UK.
The former matrimonial home in the South West of England was owned by a company which was itself owned by the trust. The husband maintained that he had no beneficial interest in the property, although he was entitled to occupy it rent-free. He also told the court that the trust owned 48 mortgage-free rental properties in the UK. (BAILII)
That immediately created a difficult question for the English court. Were these genuinely independent trust assets beyond the husband’s reach, or was the trust effectively a financial resource available to him?
Offshore does not mean invisible
The trustees initially provided very limited information. Requests were made for trust accounts, letters of wishes, details of distributions, trustee appointments and information concerning the companies within the structure.
The trustees ultimately responded that they were not obliged or authorised to provide the requested documents without an appropriate legal basis. The English High Court was unimpressed.
Mr Justice Peel considered the trust documentation central to determining the financial position of the parties and authorised a formal letter of request to the foreign judicial authorities seeking production of the relevant information. The judgment also makes clear that where adequate disclosure is not forthcoming, the English court may ultimately consider whether adverse inferences should be drawn. (BAILII)
Importantly, the court was not simply asking who legally owned the assets.
In matrimonial proceedings involving trusts, the authorities require the court to consider whether trustees would be likely to advance capital to a beneficiary immediately or in the foreseeable future. The practical issue is therefore often access to resources, rather than simply whose name appears on the legal title. (BAILII)
That distinction matters.
The lesson is not “never use offshore trusts”
There are perfectly legitimate reasons for international structures. A family may genuinely have assets, businesses, beneficiaries or tax residence spanning several jurisdictions. In those circumstances, international planning may be necessary and entirely appropriate.
But offshore planning should normally be solving an offshore problem.
Where the family lives in Britain, the assets are predominantly British, the beneficiaries are here and the objectives can be achieved under UK law, introducing additional jurisdictions can create additional questions: Which country's law applies? Who regulates the trustees? Where are records held? How readily can information be obtained? How will an English court treat the arrangements? What happens when trustees in one jurisdiction face proceedings in another? And what additional professional costs will the family carry for potentially decades?
TR v ST demonstrates how quickly those questions can become very real.
It is worth stressing that this was a family financial remedies case, not a tax avoidance case, and the judgment should not be stretched beyond what it actually decided. But the wider planning lesson is valuable: putting a structure offshore does not automatically place UK assets or the economic benefit derived from them beyond the scrutiny of UK courts. (BAILII)
The iTrust121 view
At iTrust121, we believe good planning should generally start at home.
Start with the family. Start with the assets. Start with the objectives. Then construct the simplest robust structure capable of achieving them.
For many UK families, sophisticated estate planning can be undertaken transparently within the UK using properly drafted trusts, wills, lasting powers of attorney, appropriate ownership structures and professional trusteeship.
That does not mean simplistic planning. Quite the opposite. It means sophisticated planning without unnecessary geography.
If there is a genuine international requirement, then offshore or cross-border planning should absolutely be considered with appropriate specialist advice. But the jurisdiction should follow the problem — the jurisdiction should not create the problem.
TR v ST is another useful reminder that adding companies, jurisdictions and offshore trustees does not necessarily remove scrutiny. Sometimes it simply adds another layer through which the court, the family and the professional advisers eventually have to work.
Our starting principle is therefore simple: keep planning UK-based wherever the family's circumstances allow it, keep it transparent, keep it properly governed — and only introduce international complexity where there is a genuine reason for doing so.