There have been many reported disputes relating to the inheritance of family farms.  Such cases explore a legal doctrine that in itself offers little explanation in its own description: Proprietary Estoppel.  Not every day terminology and yet the concept of relying upon a promise and suffering a detriment when it is broken is readily understandable by all. This particular case falls into that category.

The case of Tump Farm and a son excluded

Tump Farm was owned by David Guest.  In the early 1980s, he and his wife, Josephine, left the farm in their Will in equal shares between their eldest son, Andrew, and their youngest son.  A monetary legacy was left to their daughter which was equivalent to one-fifth of the net value of the couple’s residuary estate.

In or around 2015, Andrew left the farm. He had worked there from 1982 and lived in a cottage within the farm grounds with his family until 2017. Relationships however soured and this led to his parents serving a Notice to Quit upon Andrew and his family and removing them from the cottage. The fall out came in part following Andrew’s decision to work elsewhere.

In 2018, David decided to make a new Will.  The new Will excluded Andrew entirely and left the farm solely to Andrew’s brother with a lump sum of £120,000 and part of the land to his sister with a right of occupation for Josephine. David explained that his decision to exclude his eldest son was on the basis that he had “lost all Trust in him in” following his departure from the farm.

The challenge of the Will – Proprietary estoppel (a broken promise) 

Andrew sought to challenge the Will and whilst ordinarily these types of disputes arise upon death, he brought a claim against his parents for proprietary estoppel – the broken promise upon which he had relied and suffered a detriment.

Andrew’s case was that he had over the years worked on the farm for only a basic wage and relied upon the promise from his parents that one day he would inherit the farm. He stated that he had chosen not to work elsewhere for a much higher wage in reliance upon his parents promise to him and as a result he had suffered a financial detriment and was only paid a basic wage whilst working on the family farm and now was losing his previously promised inheritance.

The Court found in Andrew’s favour. Andrew was awarded a lump sum equated to 50% of the farm and its land and 40% of the rest of the land and buildings on the farm.

The Court found that David had consistently led his eldest son to believe that he would succeed in the farming business.  These assurances had continued over many years leading Andrew to rely upon them to his significant financial detriment. 

These cases are decided on their own facts. Whilst the principles remain the same, the application to key facts are vital and make witness and supporting evidence even more important. In this particular case, the Judge heard recordings of conversations that had taken place between family members and these played a part in the findings.

For further advice and assistance please contact our Private Client Team on 01604 828282 / 01908 660966 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk

The case of MacDonald v Rose [2019] EWCA Civ 4 brought to the forefront the key elements of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. The case lends itself to being memorable in the future by many law students as it relates to Mr Macdonald and a farm.

A contested Will and a family feud

Mr MacDonald brought a claim before the courts on the death of his parents and after he discovered that the family farm was to be split between his parent’s six children and not left solely to him. 

Mr MacDonald claimed that his parents had assured him over many years that he would receive the bulk of their estate on the basis of him continuing to work on the family farm during their lifetime. He claimed therefore that he worked on the family farm in reliance of these assurances and that it was unconscionable for his parents’ estates not to give effect to those assurances. His five siblings objected and sought to uphold their parents will which saw the assets split across all six children.

The siblings, the defendants, told the Court that they were a close-knit family. They added that no child was ever favoured above and beyond another. In addition, they stated that each sibling had been told on several occasions that they would all share in the estate. The Court heard from numerous witnesses, including non-family members, all of whom provided an account of events strongly supporting the defendants’ position.

The Court found that the substantial witness evidence produced by the defendants was persuasive.  The Judge noted that Mr MacDonald had run his own successful business and that during this time had not worked on the farm. The Judge considered that it could not therefore have been the case that as a family member he had worked his whole life on the farm for little recompense. The Judge concluded that Mr MacDonald’s parents had not given the assurances as alleged and the case was dismissed. The Court of Appeal reviewed the matter and upheld that decision.

The proprietary estoppel – A promise

This case saw the Court consider a legal doctrine known as proprietary estoppel. There are 4 elements to proprietary estoppel; namely:

A claimant must show that there was a promise made to them. The actions of the claimant must then be to rely upon that promise. When reasonably relying on a promise made, the claimant must show that they have suffered some form of detriment. Finally, it must be unconscionable for the promisor to be permitted to retract his or her promise.

A Court determines how best to satisfy what an equitable right is when a claim is established. It is a matter of justice being seen to be done.

Each case is decided upon its own individual facts. The MacDonald case demonstrated that it is necessary to show that all the elements of proprietary estoppel are connected and that witness evidence can be critical.

For further advice and assistance please contact our Private Client Team on 01604 828282 / 01908 660966 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk