Blog
HMRC Covid scheme amnesty: action by 31 December 2025
Waqar Shah
This weekend, the national press has reported on another bitter inheritance dispute, this time centred on a strawberry farm. The case was first reported on in 2023, drawing headlines such as “Call of fruity; Wannabe Royal Marine who abandoned his dream to join the forces and instead dedicated his life to his father’s strawberry business ….” (Daily Mail). This weekend, The Sunday Times reported, “Court battle for £10m strawberry farm puts brother in a jam”. The case in question is Winter v Winter and is on appeal to the Court of Appeal following the judgment at first instance handed down in September 2023. The judgment is awaited with interest as the case raises questions around the application of the Supreme Court decision in Guest v Guest [2022] 3 WLR 911.
Proprietary estoppel claims most commonly arise where there is a purported reliance by an adult child on a promise from their parent that one day the family farm will be theirs. This assurance gives rise to a potential claim on the basis of a proprietary estoppel, an equitable concept which arises in circumstances whereby (1) there is a representation or assurance made to an individual that he or she has or will enjoy some right or benefit over the owner’s property and (2) the individual relies on that promise to his or her detriment. The consequent dispute usually arises upon the death of the parent who goes back on their promise and bequeaths the farm to another sibling or third party, though lifetime disputes can also occur if the land is disposed of sooner.
Once a finding of proprietary estoppel has been made, the court has a wide discretion as to remedy and Guest v Guest is now the leading authority in this area having identified the below step-by-step approach to determining that remedy.
- Determine whether the promisor’s repudiation of the promise is “unconscionable” in light of the promisee’s detrimental reliance. If “yes” the starting point is the assumption that the simplest way to remedy the unconscionability is to hold the promisor to the promise.
- Ask whether specific enforcement of the full promise would be “out of all proportion to the detriment” suffered.
- Conduct a further cross-check (i) does it do justice between the parties, and (ii) is it fair to third parties.
In Winter v Winter [2023] EWHC 2393, two of the deceased’s sons – Richard and Adrian - said that their parents had made numerous assurances to them over the years that if they committed their lives to working in the family business, they would leave everything to their three sons equally and that they relied on those assurances to their respective detriment. On their father’s death (their mother having predeceased) he provided that his third son – Philip - should benefit from his share in the business. The court found in favour of Richard and Adrian and adopting the starting point in Guest v Guest, gave full effect to the assurances and determined that the father’s share in the business should be divided equally between the brothers. As noted above, it is the remedy in Winter that is subject to appeal.
These types of claims in the context of family farms continue to rise. The reasons are most likely the ageing population and significant increase in the value of farmland as well as the possibility of old fashioned views concerning gender (i.e. a son falls first in line to inherit) and a lack of communication between family members. Seeking to guard against any such claim in the first place should, of course be the priority, and to this end, the following considerations should be borne in mind:
- Do not make promises or create expectations that you do intend to uphold.
- Make a Will which clearly addresses succession along with a letter of wishes explaining the rationale. Where possible, make known your intentions to those who might have an expectation of benefiting in the decision making process.
- Contemporaneous written evidence should be created and retained to evidence what was discussed/agreed regarding the property in question.
Whilst adhering to the above provides no guarantee that a claim will not be bought, the prospects of success of any such claim are likely to be significantly diminished by doing so. However, if the matter does end up in court whilst Guest has provided some clarity around determining remedy as the position currently stands the court has a wide discretion and the outcome will continue to turn on the facts of each case.
further information
If you have any questions or concerns about the topics raised in this blog, please contact Katherine Pymont.
About the author
Katherine Pymont is a Partner in the Dispute Resolution Team who specialises in Trust and Estate Disputes.
We welcome views and opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should you require specific advice in relation to personal circumstances, please use the form on the contact page.
You may also be interested in:
Blog
‘No win, no fee’ - are clients being hoodwinked?
Dale Gibbons
Blog
Crypto reporting is changing: what this means for you - and HMRC
Waqar Shah
Share insightLinkedIn X Facebook Email to a friend Print