Understanding Proprietary Estoppel

The recent case of Morton v Morton [2022] EWHC 163 (Ch), concerning a brother and sister’s dispute over their family farm, provides a helpful illustration of the sometimes complicated principle of proprietary estoppel.

Simon Morton told the Court that he devoted his adult life to toiling on his parents’ land ‘working long hours for only modest pay’ and helping build up their farm until it was worth £6 million.

Mr Morton said his father, Geoffrey “repeatedly assured him that one day Reddish Hall Farm would be his.” He also said his sister Julie, was from an early age discouraged from working on the farm and subsequently went into business. Following his father’s death, Mr Morton continued to farm the land with his mother, with both of them owning a half share in the property. After his mother died, Mr Morton discovered that she had left her share of the farm to his sister which amounted to around £2 million after debts had been paid.

In 2021, the High Court ordered Mr Morton’s sister to pay £1 million to her brother, ruling that Mr Morton relied on his father’s promise that he would inherit the property, and this had led him to work to his detriment in building up the farm. Therefore, proprietary estoppel was established[1].

What is proprietary estoppel?

Proprietary estoppel allows a person to claim a right over the property of another if they have been led to believe that they would receive an interest in it and have acted on that belief to their detriment.

For a claim of proprietary estoppel to be successful, three key elements must be satisfied:

• Assurance – the Claimant must show that the property owner made a clear assurance that they would acquire a right or interest over the property.
• Reliance – the Claimant must have relied on the assurance. This means that they have acted in a way that they would not have, were it not for the assurance they received.
• Detriment – the Claimant must have suffered some form of detriment as a result of their reliance on the assurance. This could be financial loss, or it could be non-financial, such as making significant life choices based on the assurance.

Proprietary Estoppel and Wills and Probate Disputes

Proprietary estoppel often features in inheritance claims where a person has been promised a share or the whole of an estate, has relied on that promise, suffered a detriment as a result, but then finds that the Will does not reflect the promise.

If a Claimant can prove, on the balance of probabilities that a representation or assurance was made to them concerning an interest in a particular property and they reasonably relied on that representation to their detriment, they may have a proprietary estoppel claim. The Claimant must also provide evidence to demonstrate that it would be unconscionable for the person who made the assurance or representation to go back on their word and deprive them of the proprietary interest they had been led to expect.

In Macdonald v Frost [2009] EWHC 2276 (Ch), Geraldine Andrews QC (sitting as a Judge in the High Court) stated that to qualify for proprietary estoppel, the representation or assurance must be unambiguous, and proof of this would depend enormously on the context of the case. She relied on the House of Lords decision in Thorner v Majors and others [2009] UKHL 18. In this case, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe (with whom the other Lords agreed) said that, rather than looking for a clear and unequivocal representation or assurance, he believed that to establish a proprietary estoppel claim, the relevant assurances must be “clear enough” in the context in which they were made. His statement confirmed that an express promise was not required and that the Court would analyse the background and context in which the statements were made, albeit sometimes with sceptical scrutiny.

When it comes to relief in proprietary estoppel claims, the Court of Appeal ruled in Davies v Davies [2016]  EWCA  Civ 463, referred to in the media as the ‘Cowshed Cinderella’ case, that the detriment suffered by the Claimant must be proportionate to the remedy sought.

As well as proportionality, other relevant factors the Court will consider when granting relief include the conduct and circumstances of the parties, what the Claimant expected, the nature of the Claimant’s detriment, and whether anyone else has a claim to the disputed property.

How Askews Legal can assist with proprietary estoppel claims

We have an experienced team of contentious Wills and Probate Solicitors who can advise and represent you on making or defending a proprietary estoppel claim. These types of disputes are extraordinarily complex, and it is crucial to instruct an expert solicitor to ensure your best interests are protected.

[1] Further court cases and an appeal followed this initial ruling. These mainly concerned partnership law which is outside the scope of this article.

Please call us on 02476 231000 or email enquiries@askewslegal.co to make an appointment.

Please note: this article does not constitute legal advice.