Preventing A Proprietary Estoppel Claim

It is not every day we advise on a dispute as to who is to inherit an entire village. Yet this unhappy family dispute is precisely the situation that confronted Paul Hewitt and Geoffrey Kertesz. After various twists and turns, the dispute was resolved shortly after a contested hearing not on the merits, but on a procedural point, namely whether the claimants could introduce a new proprietary estoppel claim three months before trial.

The village

Chettle is a village in Dorset of some 1,150 acres. In 1966, it was owned by Esther Bourke, who had three children: Susan, Patrick and Edward. Susan is our client. In 1966, Esther, who was terminally ill, transferred Chettle to Susan in consideration of marriage so it would pass free of inheritance tax. At the time, the family took advice from solicitors who advised that the transfer to Susan had to be 'no strings attached' or the Inland Revenue (now HMRC) would say inheritance tax was chargeable on Esther's death. Esther also transferred Chettle House, a magnificent stately home located in the village, to Patrick. Susan has thus owned the village since 1966. Patrick lives in the village and his son, Peter, now owns and lives in Chettle House. Chettle has 33 tenanted cottages, a church, and a village shop.

The claims

Fast forwarding nearly 50 years to November 2013, Patrick and Peter brought a claim against Susan on two grounds. First, they claimed that, based on an alleged oral family agreement entered into in 1966, Susan was bound to leave the village to Peter, as Patrick's eldest son. Patrick and Peter alleged the oral agreement also required Susan not to have children; she had a daughter in 1982. Second, Patrick claimed that he had acquired title to some 120 acres of land in the village under the doctrine of adverse possession. In other words, he claimed he had acquired the land as a squatter.

The proprietary estoppel claim that wasn't

Before formal proceedings began, letters sent to Susan included language that bore all the hallmarks of a proprietary estoppel claim. Peter, a partner in a law firm, made references to promises made and broken, life choices made, and opportunities foregone. However, when Peter and his father ultimately brought their claims, they did not advance a proprietary estoppel claim. The pleaded claims were factually complex, going back over 50 years, and both sides dedicated considerable resources to preparing witness statements. The process took months. Geoff travelled to...