Jackson Lees’ Head of Civil & Commercial Litigation, Andrew Leakey, explores a recent proprietary estoppel case that was taken to the Supreme Court:

It is not uncommon for an issue to arise where an individual has been promised land, relied on that promise, and then been left disappointed when the landowner’s Will, or lack thereof, fails to reflect the same.

Individuals have always been able to apply under the principle of proprietary estoppel to seek that the promised land be transferred to them. 

In the recent case of Guest v Guest, the Supreme Court has confirmed the correct approach when seeking to value the remedy under the such case.

Unsure of the criteria for proprietary estoppel? Make an enquiry.

Background to the case

The claimant, Andrew, who has worked on his parent’s farm for some 32 years, was provided with very little pay for his work while undertaking increasing responsibilities.

He did this on the back of a promise from his parents that he would inherit a substantial share of the farm, allowing him to continue in the farming business following his father’s death.

Over time, Andrew’s relationship with his parents became strained, resulting in them making a new Will to remove his share in the farm.

When he took this decision to court, the trial judge believed that as he had worked on the farm to his detriment, he qualified to claim proprietary estoppel and instructed the parents to pay £1.3m to Andrew to cover the expectation of what he would have inherited.

Do you fit the qualifications of proprietary estoppel? Call today.

Appealed to the Supreme Court

Andrew’s parents, however, disagreed with this ruling and appealed to the Supreme Court.

Judge Lord Briggs allowed the appeal in part and ruled that his parents either put the farm into trust in favour of their children or pay compensation to Andrew now but with a reduction properly to reflect him receiving it earlier than imagined. The parents can choose between these options.

Lord Briggs giving the majority judgment confirmed that the starting point for remedy is to fulfil the expectation, albeit that there could be factors that would lead a court to depart from strict enforcement of the promise.

The court also reinforced the position that the purpose of granting the relief is to avoid the unconscionability of the landowner redlining from their promise.

Want to appeal a ruling but unsure? Make an enquiry. 

Speak to an expert 

Whilst often proprietary estoppel arises in the context of agricultural land, it can arise in a variety of situations and it is important to be able to differentiate between a promise and a mistaken belief.

It’s important to know your rights in this situation. Our friendly experts are on hand to assist you if you believe you are entitled to a proprietary estoppel claim.

If you believe that you have a propriety estoppel claim, then contact a member of our team today and allow us to help you get what you're entitled to.