A recent High Court case, Smith v Campbell & Others (2025), has put trustee conduct and governance under a bright light, offering clear guidance for lawyers who advise families and businesses on trusts. The dispute centres on the administration of a family trust set up by Graham Cheslyn-Curtis, founder of Millpledge Group, a veterinary supply company. He died in 2018. His legacy includes a family enterprise and a trust that needs careful stewardship. The case highlights when beneficiaries and advisers should consider a change in trustees, and how the court weighs the welfare of the beneficiaries against the disruption and cost of litigation. Private client lawyers say the judgment underscores practical steps that trustees must take to avoid removal, including conflict management, transparent reporting, and disciplined decision-making.
The High Court of England and Wales considered the matter in 2025. The case has drawn strong interest across private client and family business circles because it connects legal principles with the reality of running a trust linked to an operating company.
What Smith v Campbell & Others signals for trust governance
The case name alone signals a multi-party dispute, which often happens in family trust rows. The court examined how trustees administer a trust that holds or relates to family business interests. Lawyers who follow the case point to its practical grip: the court looked at behaviour over long periods and the quality of the paper trail. The court’s focus on day-to-day governance, not only headline allegations, matters for any trustee who faces scrutiny.
The dispute has resonated because it touches a frequent pressure point: how trustees balance family expectations, commercial needs, and their legal duties. When a founder dies, trustees often face competing views about dividends, investment, and leadership in the business. The case shows that courts expect trustees to show clear reasoning, impartiality between beneficiaries, and a real grasp of the trust’s commercial context.
The timing and the forum that shape the stakes
A High Court hearing in 2025 places the dispute in a modern setting, after several reforms and recent authorities that stress proportionality and early case management. The court’s approach reflects current practice in trust litigation: judges push parties to define issues, share documents, and consider settlement. Those steps reduce the risk that costs overwhelm the trust.
The Chancery work of the High Court often includes complex trust cases, especially where family wealth intersects with trading businesses. That setting means the court looks at both equitable principles and practical outcomes. The case’s timing also matters for advisers who must align governance with up-to-date duties under the Trustee Act 2000 and well-established case law on trustee removal.
The legal threshold for removing trustees
Trust law sets clear guideposts. The court can remove a trustee under its inherent jurisdiction or appoint a new trustee under section 41 of the Trustee Act 1925. The court does not need to find dishonesty. It asks a central question: do the facts show that the trustee’s continuation would hamper the sound administration of the trust and harm beneficiaries’ interests? Courts weigh evidence of mistrust, conflicts that the trustee cannot manage, persistent failure to keep proper accounts, or refusal to communicate important decisions.
Judges also look at alternatives. If a conflict exists, can the trustee manage it with disclosure, abstention, or a targeted appointment of a special trustee for a specific issue? If poor communication sits at the core, can the trustee cure the problem with better reporting and clearer processes? The court prefers the least disruptive solution that still protects the trust and the beneficiaries. That approach helps avoid unnecessary upheaval in family businesses.
Family business trusts demand a sharper skill set
Trustees who oversee assets linked to a trading company face special demands. They must understand cash-flow cycles, reinvestment needs, and governance requirements in the company itself. Beneficiaries may want income, but the business may need capital to grow or survive. Trustees must record how they weigh those factors and document why they choose a dividend or a retention policy. Robust minutes and contemporaneous notes show that trustees acted with care and took proper advice.
The Millpledge Group connection underscores that point. When a trust’s fortunes tie to a specialist sector, such as veterinary supplies, trustees must seek relevant expertise. They should consider independent valuations, risk assessments, and, where needed, professional directors or advisers at the company level. That structure can separate operational management from trustee oversight and reduce friction within the family.
Evidence that persuades the court: records, advice, and impartiality
Courts scrutinise the record. Trustees who keep full accounts, decision logs, and advice files usually stand on stronger ground. Clear letters to beneficiaries, timely financial reports, and documented conflict checks show a trustee who takes duties seriously. If a dispute arises, that paper trail can make the difference between removal and reassurance.
Impartiality also matters. Trustees must treat beneficiaries even-handedly. They should avoid favouring one branch of a family over another, especially in voting decisions that affect company control or distributions. When trustees face a potential conflict, they should disclose it early, take independent advice, and consider recusing themselves from specific decisions. Those steps reduce the risk that a court finds an unmanageable conflict.
Procedure and routes to resolution
Parties who seek to remove a trustee normally apply to the High Court, backed by witness evidence, trust accounts, and relevant correspondence. Pre-action protocols and alternative dispute resolution often feature in these cases. Trustees and beneficiaries can use mediation to narrow issues or settle. Courts welcome serious settlement efforts, especially where the trust funds the costs.
If the court considers appointing a replacement, it looks for candidates who can restore confidence and administer the trust effectively. Professional trustees or independent individuals often fit that need in family business settings. A limited appointment—such as a special trustee for a single transaction—can also solve a targeted problem without a wholesale change.
Costs, funding, and proportionality
Costs can dominate trust litigation. Trustees may seek to pay their reasonable costs from the trust, but that right depends on the circumstances and conduct. Courts expect parties to act proportionately, to avoid unnecessary skirmishes, and to share documents that can narrow disputes. If a trustee behaves unreasonably, the court can restrict recovery from the trust or order personal liability for costs.
Advisers should build cost control into the plan. They should set budgets, agree on disclosure scopes, and schedule settlement windows. They should also assess the impact on the underlying business. Disputes that destabilise management or distract leadership can reduce value for all beneficiaries. Proportionate process protects both legal and commercial outcomes.
