Do members think that Lord Sumptions’s “concealment principle” might extend to those in control of a PTC? A PTC is sometimes viewed as vehicle to exercise control which bypasses accountability that applies to individual trustees. The question is what are the beneficiaries remedies in cases of abuse? The PTC has no assets and isn’t worth suing. Gregson v HAE Trustees suggests a dog leg claim is going to be difficult. Do forum members think that such a case could fall within the scope of Lord Sumption’s so called “concealment principle” allowing the court to look behind the facade and identify the “real actors” and presumably hold them to account as if they were the trustee?