The disinherited Earl of Yarmouth could have avoided his £1.3 million legal bill following his High Court dispute with his family, leading legal experts have told Spear’s.
Lord Yarmouth was ordered to cover his own legal costs, as well as those of his parents, the Marquess and Marchioness of Hertford, and his family’s trust, following a dispute over his disinheritance. He claimed that the family trust was acting against his best interests as a beneficiary, a claim he failed to prove.
The dispute over the family’s £85 million estate arose around the time that Lord Yarmouth, whose full name is William Francis Seymour, married his now wife, Kelsey Wells. While Lord Hertford said their marriage was not the main reason for the conflict, it was debates over the ownership of their 5,600-acre family seat, Ragley Hall, that led to the falling out.
[See also: The best landed estate lawyers in 2025]
Related
‘William asked me to confirm that I would hand over Ragley Hall to him on turning 30,’ Lord Hertford told the court.
‘It was as if he had promised Kelsey that they would be moving into Ragley Hall; he was persistent.’
It was revealed that Lord Yarmouth expected to inherit the family’s £85 million estate on his 30th birthday, which the family trustees successfully argued was contrary to the purpose of the trust. The trust was established by Yarmouth’s grandfather, the 8th Marquess of Hertford, to protect Ragley Hall for future generations, not merely for the current beneficiaries’ financial gain.
The subsequent court proceedings, which began in February 2025, centred on Yarmouth’s wish to dissolve the board of trustees and appoint independent trustees. This request was later denied on the grounds that other beneficiaries within the family did not wish for this to happen.
Content from our partners
On the risks of Lord Yarmouth’s action against his family’s trust, Alexandra Gibb, associate at Wilsons Solicitors, said that it is a risky legal course to take.
‘In deciding whether a trustee should be removed, the key criterion for the court is always the safety of the trust assets and the welfare of the beneficiaries as a whole,’ she said. ‘In this instance, the court decided it wasn’t in the interests of all the beneficiaries.’
Lord Yarmouth’s siblings, Lady Gabriella Seymour, Lord Edward Seymour, and Lady Antonia Seymour, all sided with the family trust and their parents in the case.
‘People often assume that where there’s a dispute within a trust fund or someone’s estate, the cost of ironing out these difficulties will be paid for by the trust or the estate funds, but there are exceptions in certain circumstances,’ she said. ‘The court has very broad discretion, so attacks like these on trustees are very risky in terms of costs.’
Each family trust is set up in its own way, explained Gibb, with its own guidelines on how beneficiaries are to be looked after. She added that one of the best ways to avoid a dispute like Lord Yarmouth’s is to be explicit about the purpose of a trust and how it will treat its beneficiaries.
Gibb noted that Lord Yarmouth’s £1.3 million legal bill could have been avoided had the dispute been handled outside of court.
‘We would recommend alternative methods of dispute resolution, such as mediation or settlement meetings at an early stage,’ she said.
She added: ‘Usually, at a mediation or assessment meeting, you can at least narrow the issues between the parties, which in turn should help minimise costs, even if there is litigation later on.’
‘The court might say, “Well, you had the opportunity to try and resolve that earlier,” before determining who is liable for the legal costs.’
[See also: Five factors shaping the future of landed estates]
When large sums of money and property are involved, family members can feel inclined to take a litigious route, said Rupert Burchett, partner in the landed estates and agriculture department at Payne Hicks Beach. However, Burchett noted that this can often be a risky decision.
‘Family disputes relating to rural property are often bitterly fought,’ Burchett said. ‘The underlying assets in these sorts of disputes are so valuable that family members are often content to resort to litigation, which is a frustrating, stressful, and expensive undertaking.’
‘It is an increasingly challenging world in which landed estates and farmers are having to operate, and meeting and resolving issues head-on as they arise is far more sensible than ignoring them and hoping they will resolve themselves,’ he added.
The case of Lord Yarmouth is an example of where things can go wrong during disputes, said Sarah Aughwane, a partner at Withers.
‘This dispute highlights the immense emotional and financial complexity in the succession of landed estates, where disappointed expectations and communication issues can be a recipe for lengthy litigation and fractured relationships,’ she said.
She added: ‘Prioritising regular trust reviews, inter-generational transparency, and a carefully put-together governance framework can help to avoid similar problems arising at all.’
