Fields of Promise: Navigating Farming Disputes and Proprietary Estoppel

Clashes over the ownership of the family farm are sadly not uncommon among farming families. Legal battles often ensue after a family member works on the farm for years, often for low pay and infrequent holidays, on the understanding that they will eventually take ownership of the farm – only to find themselves expelled from the farm following a disagreement, or that the Will makes no or inadequate provision for them.

In either of these scenarios, a claim for proprietary estoppel may be a useful tool; if successful, such a claim may force the defendant to honour the promise made to the disappointed farm worker, as Julie Bradwell, Associate Solicitor at Ware & Kay incorporating Pearsons & Ward Solicitors in Malton, York & Wetherby, explains. 

What is proprietary estoppel?

Proprietary estoppel is a legal doctrine that operates to stop someone reneging on a promise they have made where it would be unconscionable for them to do so. It often arises in a farming context where parents have promised to leave the farm to a child, then change their mind either before they have died, or on death, bequeath it to someone else.

Following the leading case of Thorner v Major (2009), for a proprietary estoppel claim to succeed, the claimant must prove that:

• they were promised something (whether by words or inferred from conduct);
• they reasonably relied on the promise; and
• they suffered detriment as a result of relying on that promise.

What amounts to an assurance and detriment?

Cases where assurances were upheld include Gee v Gee (2018), where the father repeatedly told his son that he, ‘Would inherit the lion’s share of the farm’, and Spencer v Spencer (2023), where the father’s phrase, ‘It will all be yours one day’, was held to be sufficient for the claim to be upheld.

Winter v Winter (2023) established that the detriment suffered need not be purely financial. In this case, two brothers were disinherited in favour of a third brother and succeeded in their proprietary estoppel claim, despite having amassed significant assets from their involvement in their parents’ business. The Court of Appeal ruled that detriment should not be assessed on just a financial basis – the fact the brothers had turned down alternative career paths and committed their lives to the business on reliance of the promise of equal shares in it was enough for the claim to succeed.

What happens if a proprietary estoppel case succeeds?

If a claim is successful, the court can enforce the promise in full, or compensate the claimant for the detriment suffered. Following Guest v Guest (2022) however, awarding the full promised amount may be inappropriate and some discount may need to be given. In Davies v Davies, for example, although the court agreed to stop the claimant’s parents from breaking their promise and disinheriting her after she had worked for low pay on their farm for decades, her £1.3m award was reduced to £500,000 on appeal.

How we can help

If you feel you have been cheated out of your share of the family farm, having relied on assurances made to your detriment, you should contact our team of specialists without delay. We can quickly assess whether you have a valid proprietary estoppel claim and prepare the most robust case possible. We’ll handle all the paperwork and offer legal advice and representation if your case goes to court.

For more information please contact Julie Bradwell on York 01904 716000, Wetherby 01937 583210 or Malton 01653 692247 or email Julie.bradwell@warekay.co.uk to see how we can assist.