This article delves into the origins of trusts, how conflicts around them occur and how (hopefully) they can be resolved.

The following commentary about trusts and their use by “aristocrats” (not a regular term in these pages) comes from Kerry Venn (pictured below), associate in the wills and trusts disputes team at Wilsons Solicitors. The editors are pleased to receive such insights and welcome feedback. To get involved in these conversations, email tom.burroughes@wealthbriefing.com and amanda.cheesley@clearviewpublishing.com.

Kerry Venn

For centuries, family trusts have been the backbone of aristocratic wealth, keeping estates, land and legacy safely within the bloodline. But as families evolve – and fortunes diversify – these structures can become pressure cookers for intergenerational tension. Understanding how these conflicts arise, and how to prevent them, is essential for any family hoping to protect both its wealth and its relationships.

Today, trusts remain vital for high net worth individuals, serving as tools for wealth preservation, legacy protection, tax planning, and asset management.

Historical context of trusts
Trust law originated in medieval England, when land ownership determined wealth and power. In the 12th and 13th centuries, landowners created early trusts, or “uses,” to manage property for others’ benefit, circumventing restrictive feudal inheritance laws.

By the 17th century, trust law had matured and was firmly embedded as a tool for preserving estates, titles and family wealth from taxation and creditors. 

Fast forward to the modern era, and trusts have become a cornerstone of estate planning for high net worth families, offering tax efficiency, asset protection and long-term control.

Causes of intergenerational trust conflicts
While trusts are designed to preserve wealth, several factors can lead to disputes:

1. Different generational priorities
Younger heirs may lean towards modern investment strategies or expect more flexibility, while older generations prioritise tradition and property preservation. Conflicting priorities can cause friction, especially if trust terms are outdated. 

2. Ambiguities in trust documents
Poorly drafted trusts may create confusion about asset management or distribution, fostering disputes among beneficiaries.

3. Changing social and economic contexts
Shifts in taxation, inheritance laws, and societal attitudes may render older trust structures inadequate, prompting disagreements.

4. Family dynamics
Old rivalries, breakdowns in communication, or perceived favouritism can escalate into formal legal disputes.

Strategies to prevent conflict before it starts
-- Clear and precise drafting
Trusts should explicitly define their purpose, trustee roles, and rules for managing assets. Detailed guidelines for income distribution, property sales, or investments reduce potential conflicts.

-- Regular communication and family governance
Family meetings or governance frameworks maintain transparency, allowing beneficiaries' concerns to be addressed early. Conflict-resolution mechanisms in trust documents help avoid litigation.

-- Appointment of professional trustees
Neutral professionals, such as lawyers, accountants, or trust companies, ensure impartial oversight, reducing family tension while upholding the settlor’s intentions.

-- Build in flexibility 
Periodic reviews allow adjustments for changing family circumstances or economic conditions, keeping the trust relevant.

-- Mediation and dispute resolution clauses
Incorporating mediation or arbitration clauses ensures disagreements may be settled before court proceedings, saving time and costs.

Case Study 1: Nathan James Smith v Ian Patrick Campbell [2025] EWHC3011
This recent case involved a family will trust created from an £8 million ($10.5 million) veterinary supplies business. The claimants sought trustee removal, alleging failures in notification, accounting, and fair treatment.

The court dismissed most allegations but noted that some of the trustees' recognised that hostility could impede proper administration. The court removed two trustees, (while retaining two family trustees), and appointed an independent professional trustee for oversight. 

The judgment reaffirmed that trustee removal is guided by beneficiaries’ welfare and effective trust administration, balancing family representation with impartial oversight.

Case Study 2: The Earl of Yarmouth v Ragley Trust Company Ltd [2025] EWHC 1099 (Ch), 
The opposite outcome was reached where Lord Yarmouth unsuccessfully challenged the trustees of his family's £85 million estate for allegedly failing to maximise income and being influenced by his parents. He subsequently sought their removal, claiming they lacked independence.

The trustees argued that their actions aligned with the settlor's wishes, Lord Yarmouth's grandfather, which was to prioritise the future preservation of Ragley Hall, the family estate. 

The court upheld the trustees' position, confirming that they acted appropriately under the trust’s objectives. Lord Yarmouth was also ordered to pay both his and the trustees’ legal costs – estimated at over £1.3 million!

Legal costs: “Winner Takes All”
The Earl of Yarmouth's case illustrates the costly principle of “costs follow the event,” whereby the losing party generally pays the winner’s legal costs. This principle:
-- promotes fairness by compensating successful parties;
-- deters frivolous, weak claims and encourages responsible litigation; and
-- encourages settlements, reducing strain on the courts and unnecessary legal expense.

Courts do retain discretion and may depart from the rule, considering the parties' good faith, settlement offers, and conduct. However – the general principle stands, balancing fairness, efficiency, and access to justice while discouraging weak claims.

Conclusion
Intergenerational conflict in family trusts is common but avoidable. Clear drafting, professional trustees, transparent communication, flexible structures, and mediation clauses can dramatically reduce the risk of friction. 

With the right planning, trusts can continue to do what they were designed for: preserve wealth, protect family legacies and support future generations –  without dragging the family through costly a courtroom drama and eroding long-standing, valuable assets.