The stepchildren of a veterinary medicine tycoon have emerged victorious from a bitter High Court battle over control of his £8.2 million fortune, after trustees labelled them 'entitled spoilt brats'.
The Breakdown of a Business Dynasty Plan
The case centred on the estate of Graham Cheslyn-Curtis, boss of multinational Nottinghamshire-based medical supply company Millpledge, who died from pancreatic cancer in 2018 aged 69. The twice-married businessman left behind a detailed letter expressing his hope that his partner's children, whom he treated 'as his own', would be groomed to take over his multi-million-pound enterprise.
Mr Cheslyn-Curtis established a 'dynastic trust' and appointed his top aides, Paddy Campbell and Malcolm Taylor, to 'tutor and mentor' Leah-Jane Styring, 47, and her 49-year-old brother Nathan Smith. The intention was to bring them into senior roles at Millpledge Group, a business valued at £6.8 million at the time of his death.
From Mentorship to Legal Hostilities
However, relations between the siblings and the trustees comprehensively broke down after Mr Cheslyn-Curtis's death. Mr Campbell, who became chairman of the company board, and Mr Taylor, who worked in finance, eventually removed both Nathan and Leah from their positions within the business.
The court heard that the siblings had become disgruntled about the level of their payouts from the trust, which were controlled by the two trustees alongside family members Sarah Cheslyn-Curtis and Maldyn Stephen Henry Worsley-Tonks. A particular point of contention was a cap placed on 'profit share' payments to directors of 1.5 times base salary, which was argued to conserve cash during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Mr Campbell criticised the pair as 'self-interested, entitled, complacent, acquisitive and greedy', complaining the company was suffering through their involvement. He stated in court that their 'sense of entitlement is plain for all to see' and that their 'deep-rooted greed' was jeopardising the company's performance.
The High Court's Decisive Ruling
In his ruling, Deputy Master Andrew Holden found that the trustees' hostile views could adversely impact the trust's administration. He stated that Mr Campbell had formed a 'deeply negative view' of the claimants' character, showing 'outright hostility'.
'Whatever the provocation, in my judgment the trenchant and deeply negative views expressed by Paddy about the claimants give rise to a reasonable concern that he will find it very difficult to carry out his duties as one of the trustees of the trust with the objectivity and impartiality required,' the judge said.
The judge ordered the removal of both Mr Campbell and Mr Taylor as trustees, noting that Mr Taylor had explicitly agreed with the hostile remarks. However, he refused to remove the family trustees, Sarah and Maldyn, who had not exhibited any animus towards the claimants. A professional trustee will now be appointed to act alongside them.
The judge concluded that it was 'deeply regrettable for all concerned' that Mr Cheslyn-Curtis's vision for his life's work to continue under family guidance had not been fulfilled.
