Smith v Campbell & Others (2025) - A cautionary tale for Trustees

The case of Smith v Campbell & Others (2025) concerned a dispute between the trustees and the beneficiaries of the estate of Graham Cheslyn-Curtis ("the Deceased"), who was a wealthy individual who founded a veterinary supply company. 

The claimants argued that the trustees had failed in their duties because they failed:

1. To notify them of their beneficiary status;
2. To keep and provide trust accounts;
3. To act fairly and disinterestedly between beneficiaries;
4. To exercise independent oversight of Company A; and
5. To appreciate that the breakdown in relations and hostility had resulted in all trust and confidence to be lost.

The trustees opposed their removal and relied on the Deceased's Will and Letter of Wishes. They also accepted that the Court might intervene if necessary for the beneficiaries' welfare but argued that the claimants had failed to establish the threshold for their removal.

The Court found that most of the allegations of misconduct had not been made out in the evidence. However, it concluded that there was sufficient evidence of entrenched hostility on the part of Defendant 1 (Patrick Campbell) and the corroborating agreement of Defendant 2 (Malcolm Taylor) and that this amounted to a legitimate ground for intervention. 

Deputy Master Holden noted the language used in Patrick Campbell's witness statement to describe the claimants. In coming to a decision, the Court decided that Patrick Campbell and Malcolm Taylor should be removed as trustees and that it would appoint an independent professional trustee to act alongside the continuing two trustees. 

This case is an important reminder that the Court will likely intervene if there is sufficient evidence showing that the relationship between trustees and beneficiaries has broken down and has reached a point where it cannot be repaired. Trustees should always seek independent legal advice as soon as possible where there is risk of a potential dispute in the hope that early intervention will lead to resolution, rather than hostile litigation.