A recent family dispute over the alleged promises made between a Mother and a daughter over a plot of farmland in West Yorkshire has highlighted just how important reliable, documented proof is where there is a claim of ‘Proprietary Estoppel’.
‘Proprietary Estoppel’ comes into play if a person does not honour verbal or written promises usually concerning property or land where a person’s reliance on that promise has caused them detriment
In this case, Julie Mate claimed that her Mother, Shirley Mate, had promised that she would receive a one-sixth share from the sale of a portion of the family’s farmland if she managed to secure its release from Green Belt designation with a view to selling it on for possible housing redevelopment.
The farm business and associated land were divided equally between Julie’s Mother and two brothers, Andrew and Robert, upon their Father’s death in 1992, with Julie and her two sisters only receiving a nominal sum in their Father’s Will.
From 2002 onwards Julie began to research the potential for residential development on some 40 acres of a part of the farm known as Netherton Moor, claiming that her sole purpose for doing so was to increase the value of the farmland significantly, on the understanding that “the money would be shared with the girls” and “the girls would be looked after.”
She began pulling together a file of planning materials, including a number of Green Belt case studies from farms across the UK, and even instructed a planning consultant, one Mr Duncan Hartley, with the agreement of Shirley, Robert and Andrew.
In late 2015 the Council confirmed that the Netherton Moor land had been released from the Green Belt, with Persimmon Homes being granted permission to develop 250 houses on the site in 2021.
Shirley, Robert, and Andrew duly sold one parcel of land for £4.5 million to Persimmon on October 1st 2021, with a second parcel of land being procured for a further £4.5 million on October 1st 2022.
Julie’s case hinged on the fact that Shirley, Robert and Andrew knew that she would not have been prepared to spend time and money on the work that she did in removing the Green Belt restriction from the Netherton Moor land without recompense, and that Shirley had frequently repeated her promises to share the proceeds from the time of her husband’s death until the point that the site was released from the Green Belt.
Despite Shirley altering her witness statement in May 2022 to admit she had made such statements to her daughter, the Court found that the documentary evidence presented to support the claim of ‘Proprietary Estoppel’ was too vague to establish that a ‘clear promise’ had in fact been made.
The alternative claim for unjust enrichment, however, was upheld, with the judge stating that there was “no doubt but that the value of the property will have been increased by the grant of planning permission” and that Shirley, Robert and Andrew had been “enriched by the grant of the permission for which (they) had to pay nothing.”
Unjust enrichment in equity law refers to when one person gains wealth at the expense of another under conditions that the law deems unfair. The law requires the person who received the unlawfully obtained wealth to pay back the recipient.
Julie presented evidence that she had spent approximately 550 hours between 2008 and 2018) and nearly £6,000 in planning consultant fees up until the point that planning permission was obtained.
As such the judge granted her £652,500 (7.5% of the uplift) on the grounds that she had rendered services akin to those of a land promoter and should be compensated on a commission basis, though at a reduced rate given that she was not a professional, there was no formal contract, and she was not involved in the process’s conclusion when planning permission was obtained.
Whilst not perhaps the desired outcome for the claimant, the law is very clear with what is required to make a successful ‘Proprietary Estoppel’ claim, and in this instance, the Court found that the evidence presented wasn’t substantial enough. But what is needed for a claim to be successful?
Proving ‘Proprietary Estoppel’
Although proving a “Proprietary Estoppel” claim can be difficult, in order for it to be successful, the claimant must be able to establish three key factors:
- that a representation or assurance has been made to the claimant
- that the claimant has relied on it
- that the claimant has suffered a detriment as a result of the reliance. A detriment can take many different forms, but most often it’s financial. The claimant’s inability to pursue a more lucrative profession elsewhere or in a different industry could also be a factor in the adverse outcome.
Once these elements are established, the court will determine if fairness calls for a remedy and, if so, what that remedy ought to be. Claimants must satisfy the court with respect to each requirement in order for their claim to have any prospect of success.
Context has a major influence on claims of ‘Proprietary Estoppel’. The entire case’s facts, including the persons involved and their interactions, must always be taken into account.
The testimony of the witnesses and the judge’s preference for one version of events over another frequently determine whether a ‘Proprietary Estoppel’ claim is successful. This, along with the fact that a crucial witness will frequently have passed away, leaves a lot of room for ambiguity, especially given that individuals testifying are supposed to convey accurately their memories of a scenario that will have played out over a period of many years. In light of this, any written documentation or the records of unbiased or independent experts may be decisive.
If a claim is upheld, recent case law indicates that unless it would produce a clearly inequitable result the court will award the Claimant what he was promised.
If you feel you may have the grounds to make a claim, or have concerns about the provisions in a loved one’s Will, contact our contentious probate team for an impartial consultation.
