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

Overall evaluative exercise

Looking at the position overall, I consider that the various allegations of misconduct and of breach of duty that have been made by the Claimants do not justify, either individually or in aggregate, the replacement of the Trustees in office. In large measure those allegations have simply not been made out on the evidence before me. Even where it might be argued that a breach of duty has occurred, any such breach is of a technical nature, has caused no loss to the Trust fund, and is sufficiently historical and tangential that in my judgment it plainly does not warrant or support a conclusion that the Trustees should be replaced.

However, further to my analysis of ground 6 above, I have reached the conclusion that Paddy should be removed as a trustee of the Trust. In light of the clear hostility he has shown towards the Claimants, and of the risk that his hostility may have an ongoing adverse impact on the proper administration of the Trust, in my judgment it is necessary to secure the welfare of the beneficiaries and the proper administration of the Trust for Paddy to cease to act as one of the Trustees.

In relation to Malcolm, the position is finely balanced. Malcolm has acted as a trustee without remuneration, and in that capacity has clearly undertaken important services for the Trust, including preparing the Trust’s regular cashflow forecast. The loss of those services to the Trust would be unfortunate. However, in his evidence Malcolm has explicitly agreed with the hostile remarks about the Claimants made by Paddy. Ultimately, I consider that I ought to ensure that negative personal views about the Claimants’ character which have been formed by Paddy, and which appear to be shared by Malcolm, do not adversely affect the future administration of the Trust. I have therefore decided that Malcolm should also be removed as one of the trustees of the Trust.

In those circumstances, it seems to me that the court has two options. First, I could proceed to order the replacement of all four Trustees with an independent professional trustee. The alternative approach would be for me to appoint an independent professional trustee to act alongside the remaining ‘family’ trustees, namely Sarah and Maldwyn.

In this regard, the Claimants submitted that all four of the Trustees should be replaced. It was submitted that the Trustees were wholly aligned with one another, and that, in Mr Burton’s words “where they have chosen to stand together, they bring each other down.” It was also submitted that Graham’s wishes in respect of the composition of the trustee body had been shown by subsequent events to be misconceived – the Trustees had not acted as a check and balance on one another, and the Trustees appointed to ‘represent’ both sides of the family – Sarah and Maldwyn – had not done so.

I reject those submissions. In my judgment, the right approach is for me to appoint an independent professional trustee to act alongside Sarah and Maldwyn. I have reached that conclusion for the following reasons: