On 19 March 2025, the Court handed down its judgment in a long-running dispute between the Earl of Yarmouth (otherwise known as the Honourable William Francis Seymour, “the Earl”) and numerous other parties, including his parents the 9th Marquess of Hertford (the Honourable Henry Jocelyn Seymour, “Lord Hertford”) and his wife the Marchioness of Hertford (Beatriz Seymour, “Lady Hertford”).
The case was heard in early February 2025. It was a claim brought by the Earl and it sought the removal of the trustees of several family trusts connected with the Marquessate of Hertford. The Earl sought the appointment of an independent professional trustee in the trustees’ place. The claim was defended by the trustees (two trust corporations), Lord and Lady Hertford and their three adult children (Lady Gabriella, Lord Edward and Lady Antonia).
Background
The Seymour family seat is Ragley Hall in Warwickshire. It is comprised of 450 acres of gardens, 4,500 acres of farmland and 1,000 acres of woodland.
The claim went into some detail in respect of the fractured family relationship manifesting itself in 2018 and which gave rise to the dispute. That included references to:
- Lady Hertford allegedly “gaslighting” the Earl;
- Lord Hertford urging the Earl to call off his marriage to his now wife at the church on his wedding day;
- the Earl’s trauma he is said to have suffered by virtue of the “toxic” family relationship and “psychological abuse” he has been subjected to; and
- the “difficult and competitive” relationship between Lord Edward and the Earl, with the Earl becoming “pompous and [showing] signs of entitlement”.
The Earl argued that he had always been told by Lord and Lady Hertford that he would take over the running of the Ragley estate from Lord Hertford at 30 years of age (the Earl now being 31). It was accepted by Lord Hertford that he was now undecided as to the future running of the estate and that was, amongst other reasons, due to the Earl questioning Lord Hertford’s mental ability to run the estate.
The Trusts
There were three settlements known in abbreviated form as ST2, ST4 and 8MWT and which were valued roughly at £32 million, £3million and £8million respectively. The trusts were comprised of farmland, property, woodland, partnership interests and some chattels held at Ragley Hall.
The trustees explained in the proceedings that the Earl had received close to £7.5m from the trusts already, and Lord Hertford gifted Alcester Park Farm to the Earl in 2015 (then valued at £1.6m).
The Arguments
The Earl argued that the trustees sided with Lord and Lady Hertford in the family dispute which arose in 2018. The crux of the Earl’s case was that the trustees failed in their duties of administering the trusts, primarily because they viewed them as “dynastic” and also because they had failed to act independently by following the instructions of Lord and Lady Hertford. The Earl proceeded to set out a total of 58 grounds for the trustees’ removal.
The Law
The applicable test on an application to remove trustees was summarised and of fundamental importance is the careful consideration of the welfare of the beneficiaries generally. Proof of actual misconduct can potentially warrant a removal, but a removal will not necessarily always follow and a trustee can be removed without having breached any duty. Whilst a breakdown in relations between a trustee and beneficiary can be taken into account, that is not of itself a reason for removal.
The Decision
The Court carefully considered a number of matters arising in the dispute. We summarise the key findings as follows:
- the Earl could not rely on a dispute he himself had manufactured as a basis for removing the trustees;
- the trustees could not foresee the future disharmony that would arise;
- in respect of the Earl’s complaint that the trustees were too “wedded to the preservation” of the Ragley estate, the wishes of the settlor (the Earl’s grandfather) were material and his wish was that the estate be retained for as long as possible;
- in respect of the Earl’s allegations that the trustees did not give consideration to alternative approaches, minutes of meetings supported the position that the trustees did consider investments other than agricultural land;
- the trustees did administer the trusts themselves and made decisions independently of Lord and Lady Hertford;
- the nature of the relationship between the Earl and his family was not sufficient to justify the removal of the trustees;
- the Earl “surreptitiously” recorded meetings with his parents and others in order to obtain “ammunition” for a dispute;
- the trustees had acted professionally throughout and were capable of continuing to do so;
- it was not enough that a beneficiary had lost trust and confidence in the trustees and a removal will be ordered only where it is required for the welfare of the beneficiaries generally or where it is necessary for the protection of the trust;
- the trustees did not act contrary to their duties or apply an impermissible strategy or incorrect understanding of the purpose of the trusts;
- there was no reason to suppose that the trustees would act improperly towards the Earl or his family; and
- it was material that all the adult beneficiaries except the Earl wanted the trustees to continue in their role.
The Court therefore dismissed the claim.
Conclusion
The key takeaway for potential claimants to a removal action, therefore, is that such a removal will only be ordered where it is required for the welfare of the beneficiaries generally or where it is necessary for the protection of the trust. The Court is also likely to attach significant weight to the position of the other beneficiaries on the matter, particularly if they are all aligned with the exception of the claimant.
As for those carrying out the role of a trustee, the judgment is a reminder of the well-established principles of independence and the importance of carefully documenting trustees’ decision-making.
