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

Fecha: 17-Nov-2025

The letter of wishes

(c)

The letter of wishes

21.

Graham provided a very detailed letter of wishes indicating how he wished the Trustees to exercise their broad discretionary powers conferred by his will. The Trustees say that, while they are not bound by the letter of wishes, Graham’s wishes are an important factor in the exercise of their discretion. Indeed, the Trustees have said that they would try to honour Graham’s wishes wherever possible. So long as they do not do so blindly, there is nothing inappropriate about trustees exercising their discretion to implement a settlor’s wishes.

22.

The letter of wishes records (incorrectly) that Graham’s will was signed ‘today’, which indicates that the letter of wishes was being prepared at the same time as the will. However, the letter of wishes was in fact signed some months after the will was executed, on 9 November 2016.

23.

Graham’s letter of wishes provides as follows (this summary is adapted from the skeleton argument of Mr Learmonth KC on behalf of the Defendants, which contained a helpful summary of the main provisions of the letter of wishes):

It was important to Graham that Millpledge continue to exist.

The Trustees were to appoint the chair of “the Company” (which is defined by Graham to mean “Millpledge Limited, Millpledge Group Ltd and all other group[s] of companies where previously I was named as director”). In the first year that would be Paddy.

Nathan and Leah would be made directors of the Company, if they had not already become directors, along with Philip Wood and Richard Talbot, and they would be paid at the market rate. Paddy and Malcolm would “tutor and mentor” them into becoming “professional and responsible corporate directors.”

The Company's profits would be used as to one-third for expansion of the business; as to one-third as incentives for the directors of the company (including Nathan and Leah, though expressing the hope that they may wish to re-invest some of their share); and as to one-third to be paid into the trust fund to make payments to Nathan, Leah, and Guy.

Graham’s main residence (Whinleys House) and another property (Black Barn) were for Suzanne to use as long as she wished, though Graham hoped other family members could use them too. They would then be held for Guy and his children. Suzanne would also receive a salary as a ‘consultant’.

Guy would be permitted to continue to rent a property called Lakeview (a semi-detached property which is connected to another property owned by Graham called Tunnel Beck, which features in the Claimants’ grounds of removal).

Rent from the other properties, including the commercial properties, would be paid to Guy, as to 75%, and the 25% balance retained or used to develop the property portfolio. If any property were sold to Millpledge prior to Graham’s death (as had in fact occurred in respect of Millpledge’s commercial premises), Guy would still receive 75% of the rent Graham had previously received from that property.

Inheritance tax would be paid in instalments and met from the two income streams to be received by the Trust (the one-third of Millpledge profits and the 25% of property profits).

Graham's assistant of 30 years, Julie Soulsby, would be employed as secretary and assistant by the Trustees.

24.

Graham’s letter of wishes can fairly be accused of an attempt at micromanagement that is impractical from beyond the grave: for example, in one paragraph he says that, if he had not already altered his office, “I recommend the cupboard door in the office is reversed to provide extra storage from the corridor and allow the filing cabinet at the end of my desk be position[ed] against the old opening so extending the conference table has more room.” Nevertheless, the letter of wishes is the end product of a thorough process of reflection. It clearly represents Graham’s considered wishes for the administration of the Trust.

25.

There is also a ‘Supplement Letter of Wishes’ (sic), which is dated the same date as the principal letter of wishes. It is not signed. The Defendants say that they have been “cautious” in taking into account the wishes set out in this document. They refer to the fact that the letter appears to be unfinished. They also refer to Ms Soulsby’s evidence that Graham discovered a document on his computer, which seems to have been this document, and that he was “shocked” by it. I do not need to resolve any dispute over the status of this document, principally because (i) I do not see any inconsistency between this document and the signed letter of wishes; and (ii) to the extent that the ‘Supplement Letter of Wishes’ supplements the signed letter of wishes, it is common ground that it does so in a way that reflects Graham’s true wishes. One point in particular that can be drawn from the ‘Supplement Letter of Wishes’ is that Graham wanted his grandchildren to “have their private school fees and education i.e. university forward advancement paid through the trust.”

26.

The parties – and principally Suzanne – have also referred variously to wishes said to have been expressed orally by Graham. I do not need to make any determination in relation to this evidence, on the basis that nobody suggests that wishes expressed orally by Graham ever fundamentally deviated from the wishes articulated by him in his formal letter of wishes.