The Principle Of Proprietary Estoppel

• Law Firm: Myerson Solicitors LLP
• Subject Matter: Family and Matrimonial, Wills/ Intestacy/ Estate Planning
• Author: Myerson Solicitors LLP
• Published date: 29 May 2023

Many farmers rely on their children to work on the farm based on verbal promises that when they die the farm will pass to them.

However, what happens when verbal promises are broken?

What is proprietary estoppel?

Proprietary estoppel is a legal claim which often arises in farming cases due to verbal promises not being fulfilled.

The factual background is normally as follows:

1. A promise was made to the applicant that one day they would inherit the farm.
2. The applicant has worked on the farm in reliance on that promise.
3. The applicant has worked on the farm for low pay, and lost other employment opportunities, due to them relying on the promise that one day they will inherit the farm.
4. Upon death, the applicant discovers that the farm has been left to someone else.

The case of Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 387

Guest v Guest concerned a dispute in relation to a family farm (Tump Farm). Tump Farm was owned by David and Josephine Guest and the dispute was between David and Josephine and their eldest son, Andrew.

Andrew had worked on the farm for 33 years and his evidence was that he had done so in reliance on his parents' promise that he would inherit a significant proportion of the farm when they died.

By 2015, the relationship between Andrew and his parents had broken down to such an extent that they removed him from their Wills. Andrew, therefore, issued a claim on the basis of proprietary estoppel.

The High Court's Decision

At first instance, the judge held that there was evidence that Andrew had relied on assurances given by his parents, and he had worked hard on the farm to his detriment.

As such, the elements required for a successful proprietary estoppel claim had been established, and the judge decided that a "clean break" award should be made.

Andrew was awarded 50% of the net market value of the farming business and 40% of the market value of Tump farm.

The Court of Appeal's Decision

Andrew's parents appealed on the basis that the "clean break" went beyond what was necessary, and the remedy granted should be calculated based upon Andrew's contribution to the value of the farm or the detriment he had suffered.

The Court of Appeal held that the "clean break" award was appropriate and dismissed the appeal.

David and Josephine therefore appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's Judgment

The Supreme Court was required to...