A man who brought a claim against his parents relating to the family farm has had his case upheld by the High Court.
In Guest v Guest and another [2019] EWHC 869 (Ch) (16 April 2019), the claim involved the principle of proprietary estoppel which deals with the transfer of rights to land and property and disputes arising from this.
Under the terms of Wills made by the parents in 1981, it was intended that the farm property and business would be shared by their son (A), who made the claim, and his brother (R). From 1982 to 2015, A worked long hours every week at the farm for low pay (he did not know about the 1981 Wills) and was joined by R in 2005 who took up a full-time position. In 2012, the parents set up two farming partnerships, one run by A (the family farm) and the second run by R (the neighbouring farm).
However, following a dispute between the two brothers in 2014, their partnership ended. Except for retaining a right to occupy a farm cottage, A was disinherited under new Wills made by his parents. In 2017, A was given notice to quit the cottage by his parents and was therefore disinherited completely as a result of a further Will made by A’s father.
Until 2014, A’s father had given clear and repeated assurances to A that he would inherit the farming business which A had relied upon to his detriment by incurring significant financial disadvantage. The Court found that the parents had reneged on their assurances to him and that, despite his role in the sibling dispute and his ability to seek employment elsewhere, A had suffered injustice as a result of his father’s actions since 2014.
Interestingly, in arriving at its judgment, the High Court acknowledged that A had a "shifting expectation" regarding the extent to which he would inherit. A had known since the late 1990s that his brother would share any inheritance. However, A’s awareness of this fact did not adversely affect his proprietary estoppel claim given the assurances made by his parents and the detriment that had resulted from A’s belief that they would be honoured.
In making its award, the High Court exercised its discretion whilst ensuring that it was proportionate. Given A’s expectation that he would only inherit in the event of his parents’ deaths, it sought to reflect this by awarding a lump sum representing 50% of the business and 40% of the farm property, allowing him to make a clean break. It is anticipated that, in order to make this payment, A's parents will need to sell the family farm.
