📝 Accountability Without Scrutiny: When Legal Remedies Become an Oxymoron
At its core, a passing of accounts is supposed to be a moment of accountability.
A fiduciary — whether a trustee, administrator, or the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) — must show how they managed someone else’s money. Those affected, especially beneficiaries, must be able to review and, if necessary, challenge those accounts.
That is the foundation of fiduciary law.
But what happens when there is approval without scrutiny?
In my case, the PGT sought to have its accounts approved under the Patients Property Act (PPA) after the death of the person whose assets were being managed. At that point, an estate existed. Beneficiaries existed. And yet, the process used did not meaningfully allow those beneficiaries to challenge the accounts.
This creates an oxymoron.
It is called a “passing of accounts,” but there is no real passing. There is approval, but no true accountability. There is a legal discharge, but no meaningful scrutiny by those who bear the financial consequences.
In practical terms, this means a fiduciary can be released from responsibility without ever being fully tested by the very people whose inheritance may have been reduced.
That should concern everyone.
Fiduciary law is built on a simple but powerful principle: those who control another person’s property must be able to justify every dollar spent. This safeguard exists to prevent misuse — whether intentional or not — and to ensure transparency in the management of another’s affairs.
But there is a second, deeper problem.
Even where a right to challenge exists in theory, the cost of doing so can be so high that it becomes practically impossible. Legal fees, procedural barriers, and the risk of adverse costs can deter even the most legitimate concerns.
The cost of legal services exposes a serious flaw in access to justice. In estate matters, beneficiaries are often told they have the right to question fiduciary accounts, yet the cost of doing so can be prohibitively high. Contingency fee arrangements are rarely available, and hourly rates can quickly exceed what is at stake. The result is a system where accountability depends not on the merits of the concern, but on the financial means of the person raising it. When the cost of scrutiny is out of reach, accountability itself becomes uncertain — and in some cases, illusory.
Some may argue that judicial review alone is sufficient. But fiduciary law has never depended on passive review. It depends on adversarial testing — the right of affected parties to ask questions, demand explanations, and challenge the evidence.
Without that, the process risks becoming little more than a formality.
This is not just a personal grievance. It is a structural issue.
If legal frameworks allow accounts to be approved without meaningful participation by beneficiaries, and if the cost of challenging those accounts is prohibitively high, then the system begins to contradict itself.
Calling this a “passing of accounts” is, quite simply, an oxymoron.
Because accountability without scrutiny is not accountability at all.
Beneficiaries may have the right to question fiduciary accounts, but when the cost of doing so is prohibitive, that right exists in name only.
