CH-2025-BRS-000001 - [2025] EWHC 2373 (Ch)

Julian says that the judge was wrong on distributions, that the directions of the earlier judge had been complied with, and that the judge below made findings inconsistent with the correspondence. However, his skeleton argument for the hearing before me does not give any particulars of any of these allegations. And, as I have pointed out, an appellate court should not interfere with the trial judge's conclusions on primary facts unless it is satisfied that he was plainly wrong. As a result, none of these points is made out. And, in any event, none of them could make any difference as to the core question whether it was in the best interests of the beneficiaries to replace Julian. This ground also fails.