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

The parties

The Claimants are members of the Smith family. They are connected to Graham through Suzanne. Graham and Suzanne started their relationship in 1989. They were both previously married and divorced. They remained in a relationship for almost 30 years until Graham’s death in 2018.

Graham’s first marriage was to Barbara Cheslyn-Curtis (‘Barbara’, also known as ‘Barbie’). Graham and Barbara had one child – Guy – who was born on 19 October 1975. By order of Master Clark dated 16 December 2024, Guy was given notice of this claim. He did not become a party to the proceedings, but he did provide witness statements supporting the Trustees’ position.

Suzanne had been married to Neville Smith, and they had two children together – Nathan, who was born on 19 February 1976, and Leah, who was born on 3 March 1978.

In her evidence, Suzanne says that Graham assumed the role of father to Nathan and Leah and sought to treat Guy, Nathan, and Leah equally. Nathan and Leah have given evidence that Graham referred to himself as their father. That surprised Julie Soulsby, Graham’s long-time secretary, who recalled that neither Nathan nor Leah ever referred to Graham as ‘dad’ in her presence. But Nathan has exhibited a nice birthday card from Graham, in which Graham refers to himself as “your loving father.” It is clear that Graham treated Nathan and Leah as his children.

Guy also has three children – Leo (who at the time of the final hearing was 22); Logan (10); and Lucien (8). Leah has two children: Henry (18) and Oscar (16). Neither Leo nor Henry has been joined as a party or notified of the claim, and no party has been appointed to represent the interests of any minor beneficiaries. As this claim has been fully argued by counsel for both sides, in my view it was unnecessary for any other party to be joined or to be represented.

The First Defendant – Paddy – is an independent turnaround consultant. In that role, he was introduced to Graham in 2002 when Graham was having some difficulties with a business that had been acquired by Millpledge. Having dealt with that situation, Paddy continued to work for Graham as an advisor. The Claimants downplayed Paddy’s role in the business, but Graham himself described Paddy as his “[b]usiness adviser and confidant for many years.”

The Second Defendant – Malcolm – also joined Millpledge in around 2002. His primary role was managing the company’s cashflow forecasts. He did so for about 22 years until his retirement in May 2024. He was never appointed as a director of Millpledge. In his submissions on behalf of the Claimants, Mr Burton said that Malcolm “has every appearance of a de facto director” of Millpledge. I reject that submission: there is no evidence that Malcolm ever held himself out as a director of the company, or in practice assumed the functions of a director. He was nevertheless one of Graham’s trusted associates.

The Third and Fourth Defendants are members of the family. The Third Defendant – Sarah – is Graham’s sister. She is a retired surgeon. The Fourth Defendant – Maldwyn – is a retired officer of The Parachute Regiment, who went on to a successful career in the City. Maldwyn is Suzanne’s brother.