PT-2024-000315 - [2025] EWHC 3011 (Ch)

This is a claim to replace the trustees of the trust established by the will of the late Graham Cheslyn-Curtis, whom I will refer to in this judgment (without intending any disrespect to the deceased) as Graham.

Graham dedicated much of his life to the success of his business, the Millpledge Group (‘Millpledge’). Millpledge is comprised of a UK group holding company – Millpledge Group Limited – and a variety of subsidiary companies in the UK and overseas. Millpledge is in the business of sourcing and supplying medical products, principally to the veterinary sector. It was co-founded by Graham and his business partner, the late Derek Carthew (known as ‘Slim’), in the late 1970s.

At some point, Slim “cashed out” of the business, selling his shares to Graham. But Graham never cashed out. He continued to dedicate such time and energy as was available to him to the business right up until his death, which sadly occurred on 22 February 2018 from pancreatic cancer, at the age of 69.

At the time of his death, Graham was the sole owner of Millpledge, the probate value of which was around £6.8 million. Graham also owned several valuable residential and commercial properties, chattels, and cash at bank. The total net probate value of his estate was around £8.2 million.

By his last will dated 26 February 2016, Graham appointed the Defendants to be his executors and trustees. I will refer to the Defendants in this judgment collectively as the ‘Trustees’. I address the identity of the Trustees in more detail at paragraphs 16 – 18 below, but in short they were a combination of Graham’s trusted business advisers – the First Defendant, Ian Patrick Campbell (known as ‘Paddy’); and the Second Defendant, Malcolm Taylor (‘Malcolm’) – and family members – the Third Defendant, Graham’s sister, Sarah Cheslyn-Curtis (‘Sarah’); and Graham’s partner’s brother, Maldwyn Worsley-Tonks MBE (‘Maldwyn’).

Graham left his residuary estate to his Trustees to hold on the terms of a discretionary trust (which Graham referred to as “The Whinleys Trust”, but which I refer to in this judgment simply as the ‘Trust’) for the benefit of the Claimants – being his long-term partner, the Third Claimant, Suzanne Smith (‘Suzanne’); and Suzanne’s children, the First Claimant, Nathan Smith (‘Nathan’) and the Second Claimant, Leah-Jane Styring (‘Leah’) – as well as for his son, Guy Cheslyn-Curtis (‘Guy’), and for the issue of Nathan, Leah, and Guy.

Graham conferred broad dispositive and administrative powers on his Trustees, but he also wrote a detailed letter of wishes indicating how he wished them to administer the Trust. In that letter, Graham set out a comprehensive vision for the future of Millpledge. At the final hearing the parties referred to this as Graham’s “worldview.” What Graham wanted to happen was for Nathan and Leah to be directors of Millpledge. He wanted Paddy and Malcolm to “tutor and mentor” them in that role. He wanted much of the profit generated by the business to be re-invested into its future success. In particular, he wanted Nathan and Leah to consider re-investing their share of the profits paid to them as directors back into the business. He wanted the business to flourish in the longer term under the stewardship of Nathan and Leah, just as it had under his.

Unfortunately, Graham’s worldview has not come to pass. On the contrary: since Graham’s death there has been a comprehensive breakdown of relations, culminating in Nathan and Leah being removed as directors and dismissed as employees of Millpledge. Shortly after Nathan’s dismissal, the Claimants brought the present claim seeking to replace the Trustees.

In a self-deprecating WhatsApp message to Sarah, Graham described his attempt to “rule from the grave” as a “bloody awful prospect.” In fact, what he wanted was a continuation of his life’s work by members of his family under the guidance of his trusted advisors. There is nothing awful about that prospect, and it is deeply regrettable for all concerned that it has not been fulfilled. The result is that I must now resolve the Claimants’ claim to replace the Trustees.