2025 in review: Trust and Estate disputes

2025 produced many interesting decisions in trust and estate disputes in the courts of England & Wales. We consider just a few of those key decisions below, which illustrate that the outcome in cases of this nature remains highly dependent on the particular facts of the case and available evidence.  
 

How easy is it to remove Trustees?
 

Last year saw three interesting decisions around removal.

• Seymour v Ragley Trust Company Limited & Ors [2025]
• Fernandez v Fernandez [2025]
• Smith v Campbell & Others [2025]

In Seymour, the Claimant, the Earl of Yarmouth, sought the removal of trustees of various family trusts on several grounds. The Earl complained that he had been told by his parents and the trustees he would be handed stewardship of the Ragley estate when he reached the age of 30. When that did not happen, a family dispute arose. This eventually resulted in the removal litigation.

The trustees denied any wrongdoing but agreed they would not cling to the role if the court thought it appropriate. The court declined to remove the trustees. An interesting aspect was whether the fact of relationship having broken down between the trustees and the Earl was sufficient to justify their removal. Generally speaking, hostility between a beneficiary and trustee in and of itself with not justify their removal but if that hostility prevents the administration of the trust, it may be enough. The court here made comments about a beneficiary seeking to engineer a relationship breakdown and it ultimately found that factors which would justify removal were not made out.

On the other hand, in Fernandez, the court dismissed an appeal against the order removing the son of the deceased parents as the executor and trustee of their estates. The court held that there was no need to establish misconduct or breach of duty but found that the breakdown in relationships along with potential conflicts of interest was sufficient to make removal justified. The key test is whether the administration of the estate is being carried out properly and whether removal is in the interests of the beneficiaries. Fernandez suggests that the court will be willing to assist if it can be shown that the administration is being impeded.

In Smith, two of the four trustees of a discretionary trust were removed by the court. Several grounds were pleaded but the majority of those grounds did not succeed. Hostility was the key factor. Relations were said to have broken down with two of the beneficiary claimants having been removed as directors and dismissed as employees of a company which formed part of the trust. The judgment records that the majority of the witness evidence dealt with the company level dispute. The trustees opposed their removal. The two trustees ultimately appear to have been removed due to comments made in their witness evidence filed in the proceedings, for example, referring to the claimants as “entitled and greedy”. The judge found that:

“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.” Both the trustee who made the comments in their witness statement and the trustee who supported that statement were removed.

Hostility, when that hostility risks impartial administration of the trust, can be a key factor determining the court's exercise of its jurisdiction.

Contract and unjust enrichment to recognise unpaid family care

In Rogers v Wills [2025], the High Court found that the claimant, a daughter of the deceased, who cared for her mother during the last few years of her mother’s life, was entitled to payment from her mother’s estate for and expenses incurred in providing that care.

The deceased had six surviving children, one of whom was the defendant. In her will the deceased appointed the defendant as her executor and divided her residuary estate among all six children.

The claimant argued that she had a claim in contract on the basis that her mother had agreed to reimburse her for expenses and pay her reasonable remuneration. She argued alternatively that her mother’s estate had been unjustly enriched because of the care she had provided.

The Judge analysed both contract and unjust enrichment as forming the basis for payment from the estate. It was found that there was a binding contract for services at a reasonable price. He found there was capacity to enter into such a contract despite the mother’s diagnosis of dementia with the reminder that a dementia diagnosis on its own does not necessarily mean that person does not have capacity.  

The Judge also found that the estate would still be liable in unjust enrichment. He found all elements were present and applied the doctrine of “free acceptance”. Substantial benefits had been conferred upon the mother at the claimant’s expense. The Judge found that the mother had accepted those benefits, had had the opportunity to decline them and knew there was an expectation of payment.

Whether this will prompt more claims by relatives who have provided long-term care will be something to look out for.

A probate dispute in which “the deceased says she is very much alive”

And finally, while not a case which provides significant legal learning, the case of Ashimola v Samuel [2025] was one with a most unusual set of facts.

An elaborate fraud designed to seize ownership of Mrs Ashimola’s London property involving forged documents and non-existent spouses which resulted in the court revoking a fraudulently obtained grant of probate.

The claims before the court followed previous proceedings in which a Tony Ashikodi claimed to have a beneficial interest in Mrs Ashimola’s property. The court was told that Mrs Ashimola was declared dead in Nigeria in 2019 intestate. A forged Nigerian death certificate was used to obtain a grant of probate over her English estate by two people who said they were attorneys for Mrs Ashimola’s surviving spouse, Mr Lasisi.

Mrs Ashimola appeared at the hearing by video link, satisfying the court that she was in fact alive. She denied any knowledge of Mr Lasisi and said she had certainly not married him. Ultimately, the court found that Mr Lasisi did not in fact exist (he had not participated in the claim save for filing an acknowledgment of service and statement filed by someone else which was said to contain very little personal information) and that multiple documents had been forged. The court revoked the grant of probate.

These cases demonstrate the nuanced and often complex issues arising in trust and estate disputes, underscoring the importance of seeking specialist advice at the earliest opportunity. It will be interesting to observe how the landscape continues to develop as 2026 progresses.

About the authors

Sophie is a Senior Associate in the Dispute Resolution team. She specialises in trust, estate and court of protection disputes, often acting in high value and complex cases.