Case Summary: Mate v Mate [2023] EWHC 238 (Ch)

• Law Firm: Gatehouse Chambers
• Subject Matter: Real Estate and Construction, Construction & Planning, Real Estate
• Author: Ms Gemma De Cordova
• Published date: 07 March 2023

Farming family disputes have been back in the spotlight in the past month with the High Court handing down its decision in Mate v Mate [2023] EWHC 238 (Ch). Over the course of 7 days, in the latter part of 2022, Andrew Sutcliffe KC considered claims founded in proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment pursued by Julie Mate against her mother (Shirley) and two brothers (Robert and Andrew).

The judgment comes only a few months after the Supreme Court's decision in Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27, which considered the correct approach to remedy in successful proprietary estoppel claims (as discussed by my colleague Edward Rowntree in a 'Brew' here).

The judgment (no less than 90 pages) serves as a reminder of the legal tests that must be met in such claims and that each case will turn on its own facts.

Background

Shirley and Donald Mate had married in 1954; they had 5 children - 2 sons and 3 daughters. They ran a dairy farm and also a milk bottling and milk retail business. The sons became partners in the business shortly before their father passed away in 1992.

By the time of his death, Donald owned land (mostly jointly with Shirley) totalling around 140 acres and the partnership rented a similar amount again. Donald left his share of the farm business to Shirley, and his two sons, in equal shares. He also passed his share in other property that he owned jointly with Shirley, to his sons in equal shares.

Julie had been unhappy with their father's will, which left the sum of '36,000 to the daughters in equal shares. Such was the financial predicament of the farming partnership at the time, that this provision was later substituted with a gift of 3 cottages, because there were insufficient sums to pay the daughters. However, Julie did not challenge her father's will at the time and acknowledged during the trial that she ought to have done.

The Potential Development

In around 2007, Julie started looking into the potential development of around 40 acres of the farm (the Netherton Moor land). She identified a suitable planning consultant, Mr Hartley and arranged to bring him to a meeting at the farm with her mother and brothers. Following that meeting in June 2008, Shirley, Robert and Andrew agreed that Julie should engage the services of Mr Hartley to assist her in achieving the removal of the Netherton Moor land from the Green Belt with a view to such land being allocated for housing on the Council's Local Plan.

It was Julie's case that she worked on this...