Farming Probate disputes and proprietary estoppel – process for proving detriment simplified

A recent Court of Appeal decision may have important implications for farming families caught up in ‘who gets what’ proprietary estoppel claims.

It helps clarify the position for those who make a life-changing decision to work on the family farm based on a promise of future inheritance, if a dispute arises later.

By suggesting claimants no longer have to prove they overlooked a more lucrative alternative career to farming to show detriment, the ruling may pave the way for more farming proprietary estoppel claims.

The number of people disputing a loved one's Will is rising fast and farming family disputes – often particularly bitter and protracted – are no exception, although the majority of cases are settled out of court.

• Wards Solicitors' Contentious Trusts and Probate Team can provide specialist advice if you’d like to contest or defend a Will. Every case needs to be looked at on an individual basis and time limits also apply.

What exactly is proprietary estoppel?

This type of inheritance dispute is more common in farming families than any other, often because, despite the presence of a Will, a family member believes they were not left the share of the farm they had been promised.

Known as 'proprietary estoppel' cases, they often turn into hard-fought battles which in some cases have ended up with the family farm having to be sold to meet the financial needs of those involved.

Proprietary estoppel can be used to stop someone reneging on a promise or assurance, however informally made, when that assurance was relied upon by the other person to their detriment.

It hinges on being able to prove the person bringing the claim had reasonable grounds for believing they would one day inherit property or land. As a result of relying on this assurance, they were left at a disadvantage.

What happened in this proprietary estoppel case?

In 2023, the High Court found in favour of brothers Richard and Adrian Winter who had brought a proprietary estoppel claim against their older brother, Philip Winter.

All three brothers had devoted their lives to working for the strawberry farming business in Somerset and were initially told, as set out in their father’s Will, that they would inherit the estate equally.

However, their father, following the death of his wife, reorganised the business and wrote a new Will leaving everything to Philip.

The High Court recognised that Richard – who said he’d given up a potential career in the Royal Marines and Adrian – who said he would have pursued a career in demolition – had relied on their father’s assurances, to their detriment, and were therefore entitled to a share of the business.

Philip appealed this decision. He said his brothers had not sufficiently proved detriment as the career opportunities they’d overlooked would have left them in a worse financial position than working on the farm had they chosen to pursue them.

This point was to prove crucial.

What did the Court of Appeal decide in this important proprietary estoppel case?

The appeal was dismissed with the court finding that the High Court judge had appropriately weighed up the financial benefits against any detriment experienced by Richard and Adrian.

It was accepted that although alternative careers might not have made them wealthier, Richard and Adrian had suffered immeasurable detriment by giving up all other job options to devote their lives to the family farm.

Lord Justice Newey said: “Where…a claimant has made a life-changing choice and over many years undertaken work in reliance on an assurance, the Court will probably be prepared to treat the loss of opportunity to lead a different life as itself detrimental without requiring the claimant to prove, or itself trying to determine, quite what the claimant would have done and with what consequences…”

Why is this proprietary estoppel case so significant?

This Court of Appeal case carries significant weight because it means claimants no longer need to prove what alternative career they would have pursued, and to what financial effect, if they had not decided to forgo this to work on the family farm, believing they’d one day inherit a share.

This simplifies the process of establishing detriment and may be particularly important for family families where estates are often complex and a ‘handing down through the generations’ philosophy remains imperative.

• Of course, careful succession planning and the execution of a well-drafted Will can minimise the chance of this type of distressing dispute occurring. Please contact our highly experienced Wills, Probate and Mental Capacity team for help in how to do this.

Get in touch

If you want to contest or defend a Will, please contact Wards Solicitors’ Contentious Trusts and Probate Team.

Our lawyers are members of the Association of Contentious Trusts and Probate Specialists (ACTAPS), the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP), Solicitors for the Elderly (SFE) and the Law Society’s Probate Panel. All demand an elevated level of expertise and up to date knowledge from their members.

Wards Solicitors’ is praised by the Legal 500 Guide 2024 for fielding a team of contentious probate experts regularly instructed on complex and high-value disputes and with a strong presence across the South West.

Elizabeth Fry is highlighted as a key lawyer with two decades of experience specialising in high value and multi-jurisdictional matters.