Earl loses legal battle with family over £85m ancestral estate
The Earl of Yarmouth, William Seymour, has lost a legal battle over his parents' £85 million ancestral estate.
Lord Yarmouth brought the case after asking his father to hand over control of 400-year-old Ragley Hall, near Alcester in Warwickshire, when he turned 30 in 2023.
But the Seymour family, who are indirect descendants of Jane Seymour, Henry VIII's third wife, suffered a public falling-out after the Marquess and Marchioness of Hertford refused to do so.
Lord Hertford, 66, previously told the High Court the couple's relationship with their eldest son 'deteriorated very sharply' after he made the request in the run-up to his wedding to Kelsey Wells, a former Goldman Sachs banker, in 2018.
In a judgment released on Monday, Master James Brightwell, a High Court judge, dismissed Lord Yarmouth's claim and said the estate's trustees had acted within their duties.
He added: 'There is no reason to suppose that they will act improperly towards the claimant or his family, either on a personal level or in the administration of the trusts.'
The court previously heard that Lord Yarmouth's Brazilian-born mother, Lady Hertford, sent an email to her son in 2018 which said there were 'no funds available for supporting two generations at the same time' and that there were 'no obligations as to when or what is handed over'.
She added: 'Nowadays, retirement happens later and people live longer. Our concern is you don't seem to be taking it all in – as if you were somehow expecting Ragley to fit within your needs.'
The court heard the Earl sent what his parents described as 'hostile and inflammatory' emails to Lady Hertford, now 65, which were said to have been 'questioning' of his father's 'mental capacity', which the older couple said caused them 'enormous upset and anger'.
Lord Yarmouth, now 31, claimed the 'trauma' of being told that he would not be able to take over the 400-year-old estate at the age of 30 'upended' his life.
He told the court that he needed 'professional help and counselling to deal with trauma as a consequence'.
Lord Yarmouth, who runs St Maur, a craft elderflower liquor distillery, with his wife, sought legal action to remove the trustees overseeing the family estate, whom he claimed had sided with his parents. He also wanted to replace them with 'independent professional trustees'.
However, lawyers for Lord and Lady Hertford and Lord Yarmouth's three siblings – Lady Gabriella Seymour, Lord Edward Seymour and Lady Antonia Seymour – said they wanted the trusts left undisturbed and argued that Lord Yarmouth had behaved in an 'unreasonable and vindictive' manner.
The companies running the family trusts – the Ragley Trust Company Ltd and Seymour Trust Company Ltd – denied being biased.
Earl accused mother of 'gaslighting' him
Among other claims, Lord Yarmouth and his wife said the trusts refused to release money for their two children's private school fees, though the trustees' lawyers insisted they needed more information from the couple in order to do so.
They also said they were kicked out of their cottage home on the Ragley Estate with just a few days' notice and that clashes had taken place with trustees over the fees dispute.
At a hearing earlier this year, Paul Burton, Lord Yarmouth's barrister, said the trustees had contributed to the family strife and misdirected the estate. He told the court: 'I can't say that the trustees did this or that and so caused the family breakdown – I can say that the trustees are a problem and have exacerbated it and fuelled it.'
He later added: 'That the relationship of trust and confidence between the claimant and the trustees has irretrievably broken down is beyond argument.
'There is no prospect of these outstanding matters being resolved while the trustees are in office.'
The court also previously heard how Lord Yarmouth had accused his mother of 'gaslighting him'.
In his first witness statement submitted to the court, he wrote of how his parents responded after he told them he would be marrying Lady Yarmouth.
He said: 'My experience from the way they behaved was that they were far from delighted...
'Even at the church on my wedding day, as I awaited the arrival of my bride, my father, Lord Hertford made a point of urging me to call off my marriage, and told me: 'You can still call it off and we'll send everyone home, just say no'. (An extraordinary thing for a father to say to his son on his wedding day.)'
Lord 'disappointed at son's lack of achievement'
However, while Lord Hertford acknowledged that 'William not inheriting Ragley Hall' at the age of 30 coincided with his marriage, he said his son's wife was 'not the main reason' and that his son's behaviour 'started to change before his marriage'.
He added: 'It was like he had promised Kelsey that they would be moving into Ragley Hall, he was persistent.'
The court heard how Lord Yarmouth had already received capital distributions from the trusts of around £4.2 million by the time he turned 21.
His father also expressed disappointment in his son's lack of qualifications.
Lord Yarmouth attended Cirencester Agricultural College, although he 'dropped out after a year,' said a barrister for the family and the two trusts.
Lord Hertford said in his evidence: 'I am disappointed at William's lack of achievement. I am proud of the fact that he went to college but made a mistake at university and didn't graduate.
'William has not followed a profession or obtained qualifications or experience to take over the running of Ragley Hall.'
'Considerable emotional and financial toll'
In his judgment, Master Brightwell said: 'Even though the claimant maintains that this is not a family dispute or a claim about a breakdown in family relations, the claim is on any view brought against a backdrop of such a breakdown, details of which feature heavily in the evidence before the court.'
The judge added: 'I do not consider that the nature of the relationship between the claimant and his parents and siblings, which I accept is poor, can itself justify the removal of the trustees.'
Following the ruling, Lord and Lady Hertford, Lady Gabriella, Lord Edward and Lady Antonia said in a joint statement: 'This has always been a family matter. Nevertheless, by bringing the trustees to court, we felt obliged to respond and to stand for what we believe is best for future generations and the Ragley Estate.
'All five of us are pleased to see that Master Brightwell has recognised the good work of the trustees in his judgment. We are also relieved and grateful that these unfortunate proceedings have been brought to a close.'
They added: 'Sadly, this has taken a considerable emotional and financial toll. These proceedings have not only been stressful but have also placed a significant demand on our resources. It is regrettable that William's unsubstantiated claims ever escalated to this extent.'
Earl 'open to reconciliation'
The Earl of Yarmouth said in a statement: 'I thank Master Brightwell and the court for providing this judgment. We will study the judge's findings and take those into consideration as we determine our way forward.
'Naturally, I am disappointed with elements of this judgment. The claim I brought was narrow and specific. It concerned the trustees of three of the trusts associated with the Ragley Estate.
'My purpose has been to seek to ensure the protection of my family's interests in the trusts and, in particular, the welfare of my children as Beneficiaries.'
He added: 'As much as it is painful for both sides, my wife Kelsey and I remain open to reconciliation with my parents.
'Privately, we have made this clear to Lord and Lady Hertford.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Sorry parents, but your baby has no business being in the office
She was, explained entrepreneur Davina Schonle, 'humiliated'. She'd travelled for three hours to attend the Monday sessions of London Tech Week, a gathering of global leaders in technology at Olympia, a vast exhibition centre in Kensington, west London. Schonle had been looking forward to the day's agenda, which included Red Bull's Christian Horner discussing tech advances in F1, Baroness Lane-Fox explaining how AI can be a force for equality, insights into what investors are looking for in tech companies and a panel making the case for launching tech businesses in the UK. Schonle's business is a start-up called Humanvantage AI, and she was particularly keen on the prospect of networking with so many key figures in the industry. The problem was she didn't make it through the door, not even to registration. Monday would not be a day on which she could add to her collection of lanyards. The reason: her plus one, Isadella. Doubtless brilliant, a hoover of information, a magnet of human interest, very possibly with a great future in supply chain inventory management – but, unfortunately, just eight months old. Mother protested, baby babbled, and the pair were forced to turn tail and make the three-hour journey straight back home. Schonle has since complained about the refused entry, posting on LinkedIn (obviously) that: 'I should be able to build my company with [Isadella] by my side… Doesn't our future belong to the kids?' London Tech Week then put out a statement saying that one of its attendees 'wasn't able to attend with her baby because of the event's age restrictions. We're very sorry she had this experience and have reached out directly to apologise and discuss what happened.' The statement continued: 'We've listened carefully and we are going to review our approach to age restrictions and facilities ahead of next year's London Tech Week.' So while they might be sorry, they're not committing to allowing under-16s and neither should they. And not just because it's the tech-savvy young teens who are about to steal all their jobs and blow them out of the water. But because sweet and cute and cuddly, soft-skinned and lovely to sniff and gorgeous though they are, conferences, workplaces and offices are not the place to bring babies and small children. For they are the ultimate disruptors and they're designed that way so that we can't ignore them – so that we will feed for them, care for them and love them. Which is why when Ms Schonle said on LinkedIn that, 'I was excited to attend, connect, have meetings and contribute', she should have realised that Isadella would have been a gorgeous distraction. Indeed, there's a photo of her posted on Schonle's LinkedIn page at the front doors of Olympia. She's waving, smiling, her beautiful, bright eyes and wispy hair are an audition for a clothing, nappy or soap brand. Everything else in the photo is dull by comparison: suited attendees, the signage and various folk ambling around looking lost. With a baby in tow, how were Schonle or her intended networkers supposed to focus on discussing how Humanvantage AI empowers human excellence through conversational AI-powered role-play? And if she landed new clients on the strength of how gorgeous her baby was, well, that would be unfair and cause chaos. There are reasons we have offices and reasons why, post-Covid, many workers are being told to get back to them.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The ‘experts' you've never heard of inspiring Rachel Reeves's disastrous economic policy
A little like the Chagos Islands giveaway and, more recently, the apparent Gibraltar sell out, it's almost impossible to work out the motivations behind each and every idiotic decision this Labour Government takes. There's a palpable sense of incredulity spreading across Britain as the Prime Minister and Chancellor continue to insist that everything is going swimmingly despite most key markers showing precisely the opposite is true. Take the economy. In Wednesday's Spending Review, Rachel Reeves boasted that she had 'wasted no time' removing the barriers to growth. Less than 24 hours later, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that UK GDP had shrunk by 0.3 per cent in April. Labour continues to splurge taxpayers' hard-earned cash despite the national debt sitting at around 96 per cent of GDP, the budget deficit more doubling in the past seven years, and public spending being on a par with the profligate Labour government of the 1970s, which almost bankrupted the country. Back then, taxes as a share of GDP were around 33 per cent. Forecasts suggest that, by 2027, they could reach 37.7 per cent. Unemployment is at its highest level in four years, UK payrolls have lost 276,000 employees since the autumn Budget, and a millionaire is reportedly leaving the UK every 45 minutes under Labour. Still, no one in the Cabinet appears able to rule out further tax rises, with Paul Johnson, the outgoing chief of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) concluding that 'council tax bills look set to rise at their fastest rate over any parliament since 2001-05.' Who is advising Reeves on tax policy, and her relentless assault on our wallets? Readers may not have heard of Arun Advani and Andy Summers, but these little known academics may have been the inspiration for Labour's seemingly never-ending tax grab. They run the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax), which some credit for Labour's farm tax. Advani, who is associate professor in the economics department at the University of Warwick, called for inheritance tax 'loopholes' on farms to be scrapped in two reports for the Institute for Fiscal Studies, as well as writing a further report for CenTax making the same arguments for changes to both Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR) last October. After Advani boasted at the Labour Party Conference that he was 'optimistic' because the Labour government is 'genuinely listening' to his ideas, Reeves announced in the Budget that the availability of 100 per cent relief for agricultural and business property would be capped at £1 million. So far, so predictable, you may argue. What's the harm in tapping up Left-wing think tanks for radical tax ideas? Do Conservative governments not rely on the research of free market institutes? Well, some have alleged the Treasury relied solely on CenTax's projection that the changes would raise £520 million, without doing its own calculations. As it conceded in response to a Freedom of Information request: 'H M Treasury does not hold a disaggregated cost projection for the revenue raised from the measure announced at Autumn Budget 2024 to restrict these reliefs. This is a combined policy across the reliefs, rather than separate policies for each relief.' Even more problematically, the £520 million figure has been challenged. The OBR itself said it was uncertain how much would be raised as a result of behavioural responses, whilst CBI Economics calculates that the new tax on both family firms and farms will actually cost the Treasury £1.9 billion over the next five years. Advani claimed that only around 500 farms would be affected by the tax. As the Adam Smith Institute points out, however, 'the government's much-quoted '500' a year is really 15,000 a generation.' The true number of farms could be more than 40,000. Separate research, commissioned by Ashbridge Partners, found that one in 10 farmers surveyed said they will face an IHT bill of more than £1 million due to the inheritance tax hike, with 31 per cent expecting to pay more than £500,000. Why didn't Labour listen? Treasury minister James Murray, who referenced back in 2022 how many Zoom meetings he'd held with Dr Summers, even hosted CenTax's official launch in Parliament last November when he declared his desire 'to make sure that collaboration between CenTax, Treasury and HMRC continues for many years into the future.' Advani and Summers also influenced Labour's pledge to scrap non dom status with Treasury ministers again seeming to unquestioningly swallow their claim that it would raise £3.2 billion, a figure repeatedly cited by the Government. The trouble is, that number was also based on some misguided premises, perhaps including Advani and Summers' quite ludicrous prediction that out of 70,000 non-doms, only 77 would leave. As other economists later pointed out, the projection did not take into account the impact of abolishing non-dom inheritance tax protections. Even the OBR assumed that the changes would likely lead to a loss of 25 per cent of non-doms with trusts, which could cost the UK more than £12 billion during the course of the parliament. Still the Government swallowed the £3.2 billion figure hook line and sinker despite some now estimating that 10 per cent of non-doms may have already left the UK. A report by the CEBR predicts the ongoing exodus could reach 40 per cent – costing the Treasury a self-defeating £7.1 billion over this parliament. This combined with the £1.9 billion revenue lost as a result of the farm and family firm tax could mean the Government is down £9 billion thanks to listening to these nitwits. CenTax also wrongly predicted that increasing the tax rate on carried interest to 45 per cent would raise additional revenue of £0.8 billion per year. Labour settled on 32 per cent – but a January 2025 estimate by the OBR suggests that only £100 million will be raised and since then Reeves has watered it down. Labour claim to be a 'party of business'. So why are they seemingly listening to two economists who are laying the intellectual groundwork for an expansion in taxation that could come to look like Corbynism on steroids.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
UK's Spectris rejects second KKR takeover approach in favour of Advent's $5 billion proposal
June 13 (Reuters) - Britain's Spectris (SXS.L), opens new tab said on Friday it has rejected a second takeover proposal from private equity firm KKR, days after the scientific instruments maker backed a possible competing $5 billion bid from Advent. Spectris did not provide details on KKR's proposal, noting only that it was the second proposal by the PE firm it had rejected. The company, which provides hardware and software solutions to sectors such as pharmaceuticals, steel and automotive, said on Monday it would accept private equity firm Advent's proposal of 37.63 pounds per share if a formal offer was made. Advent and KKR did not immediately respond to Reuters' requests for comment. The competing proposal by KKR was first reported by the Wall Street Journal on Friday. Spectris is the largest takeover target this year in Britain, a country that has attracted overseas buyers in recent years due to relatively cheap valuations. Under UK takeover rules, KKR has until July 11 to make a formal offer or walk away.
