Promises Promises Promises – Proprietary estoppel and the case of the Hughes family

In the recent case of Hughes v Pritchard and others the court dismissed a claim brought by the estate of one of the Deceased’s sons despite pre-existing findings that the deceased had promised that son the entirety of his farmland and that the son had relied on the promise.

The Deceased Evan Richard Hughes died on 7 March 2017 aged 84 years. He was a cattle farmer with 137 acres of farmland and other property including a family building business. He had three children Gareth, Carys and Elfed; Elfed had tragically taken his own life in 2015. The Deceased had made three Wills in 1990, 2005 and 2016. By the 2005 Will he left his shares in the family business to Gareth and Carys and all his farmland to Elfed; the original trial judge found that Elfed had always been told that he was being left the farmland (137 acres) and in reliance on this promise he had worked long hours on the farm.

In 2016 a second Will was made under which the farmland would be divided between Gareth and Elfed’s estate with the shares to the family company being divided between the deceased’s grandchildren.

Gareth applied for probate of the 2016 Will and Elfed’s widow and son (Gwen and Stephen) counterclaimed for probate of the 2005 Will. In 2021 the High Court held that the 2016 Will was invalid due to the deceased’s lack of capacity and admitted the 2005 Will to probate; the High Court also made a finding that the Deceased had made clear representations to Elfed that he would inherit the farmland which he had relied on.

However in March 2022 the Court of Appeal set the High Court decision aside saying that the 2016 Will was valid. The Court therefore had to consider Gwen and Stephen’s cross-claim which was that a proprietary estoppel arose in favour of Elfed's estate in respect of the Deceased's agricultural land; this was disputed by the Deceased’s son Gareth

To succeed in a claim for estoppel a claimant must show: (i) that a promise had been made or assurance given to him by another (the promisor) in relation to property; (ii) that he had relied on that promise; and (iii) that he suffered detriment as a consequence of his reasonable reliance so that it would be unjust or inequitable to allow the person who has given the assurance to go back on it. The essential test is that of ‘unconscionability’ so that a court will ask whether the promisor’s failure to fulfil his promise was unconscionable; and in answering that question the court must look at the matter in the round, having regard to the nature and quality of the promise, the nature and extent of the detrimental reliance, and all other factors that may affect the conscionableness of the promisor’s conduct..  

The Court’s decision

The Court of Appeal Judge considered each of the categories of detriment that were said to have been suffered by Elfed carefully and concluded that the relationship between Elfed and his father did not materially disadvantage Elfed: in fact. Elfed had received benefit in the form of assistance from his father over many years being able to use his father’s farm rent-free to run his own successful farming business. In other words Elfed had not suffered sufficient detriment to make it unconscionable for the Deceased to have failed to leave the promised farmland to him.

In the absence of detriment the claim brought by Gwen and Stephen on behalf of Elfed’s estate failed and the Deceased’s estate administered in accordance with the 2016 Will.

Conclusion

This case shows how unpredictable proprietary estoppel claims can be given that two senior judges made diametrically opposed decisions with both Judges interpreting medical evidence differently.

For more information on the above or any other litigation issue, contact Julie Bradwell on York 01904 716000, Wetherby 01937 583210 or Malton 01653 692247 or email julie.bradwell@warekay.co.uk.