Earl of Yarmouth Fights Family Over £85m Estate In High Court Battle

A bitter family feud in one of Britain’s most distinguished aristocratic families has sparked a High Court battle. William Seymour, the Earl of Yarmouth, has been cut off from inheriting the family’s £85m estate.

This legal battle highlights the potential problems of inheritance rights and the management of family estates.

The Hertford family descended from Edward Seymour, the brother of Jane Seymour, Henry VII’s third wife. The family own Ragley Hall, a historic stately home located in Warwickshire. This grand Palladian mansion is set within a 6,000-acre estate, including woodland and several farms.

The Earl of Yarmouth and his wife are pursuing legal action against the trustees who manage Ragley Hall’s estate. The couple wish to remove the trustees, alleging that they have mishandled the estate’s financial matters and have shown bias through siding with the Earl’s parents.

When is the court likely to remove trustees from a trust?

The court will intervene as a last resort by exercising its inherent jurisdiction. The court will not approach the removal of trustees lightly and the following principles must be considered in the court’s decision:

The welfare of the beneficiaries
The security of the trust property
An efficient and satisfactory execution of the trusts
A faithful and sound exercise of the powers conferred on the trustee

The court is likely to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to remove a trustee if they have positively abused their position and if any of their misconduct has been dishonest, disloyal, or jeopardised the trust property. The court will not usually intervene simply due to a personality clash or hostilities, unless this has a significant detrimental impact upon the operation of the trust or the assets within the trust.

Background of the family feud:

Lord Yarmouth is the eldest son of Lord and Lady Hertford. He expected to inherit Ragley Hall upon his 30th birthday like his father had. The breakdown of their relationship was apparently caused by William requesting ownership of the estate prior to his 30th birthday. His parents did not agree that he was ready to inherit the estate citing his lack of life achievements.

The Marquess and Lady Hertford described communication with their son as “hostile”, but their relationship was truly destroyed when William began to question his father’s mental capacity during conversations over email with his mother.

The feud deepened when William and his wife, Kelsey Wells, accused the trustees of ignoring William’s suggestions. Kelsey also felt disrespected and was left out of trustee meetings. The Earl of Yarmouth wanted to have greater involvement in the estate’s financial management. This caused arguments over their lack of access to funds to cover their children’s private school tuition and other estate-related matters.

The Earl of Yarmouth disagrees with his family on what started the breakdown of their relationship. He alleges the feud only began when the Marquess of Hertford urged his son not to marry Kelsey, a former Goldman Sachs banker, in June 2018. Lady Yarmouth previously accused the Marquess of Hertford of attempting to “undermine, frustrate and disrupt their happiness” prior to their marriage.

Despite his father’s advice to leave his partner, the couple married and a year later were given six days’ notice to vacate their home on Ragley Estate. Lady Yarmouth, who was pregnant at the time, was hospitalised and blamed the trauma experienced on their swift eviction. Lord and Lady Hertford justified the eviction by stating it was to make room on the property for the Dowager Marchioness of Hertford.

Legal action against the trustees:

As a result of the family conflict, the Earl of Yarmouth and his wife are pursuing the trustees of Ragley Hall’s estate. The couple are taking legal steps to remove the current trustees. William has had to seek professional help for the “trauma” of not inheriting his family’s estate by 30. Lord and Lady Hertford, along with William’s three siblings argue that William is the one worsening the situation through legal disputes and creating tension in family meetings. The family has described the Earl of Yarmouth’s behaviour as “unreasonable and vindictive” and wish to preserve the trusts by keeping the experienced trustees in place.

As the case continues in court, a decision will be made to either dissolve the trusts and remove the current trustees or preserve the family trust system. The outcome could set a significant precedent for disputes in large family estates in the future.