The recent case of Winter v Winter is the latest in a series of cases which the court has decided on the issue of proprietary estoppel, which allows a person who has been told that they will receive something to raise a challenge if the promise has been broken, and they have relied on the promise to their detriment.

In Winter v Winter, Albert and Brenda Winter and their three sons ran together for many years a large farming business which owned three substantial farms and 4 houses in which they each lived.  The business paid each of Mr and Mrs Winter and their sons a good salary, bonus, dividends and pension contributions.  After Mr and Mrs Winter’s deaths, a larger share was left to one of their sons, Philip, who had spent more time looking after his father in his final years.

Assurance or promise

The judge found that Mr and Mrs Winter had led their sons to believe that if they committed to working in the family farming business, it would be left to them equally.  This amounted to the assurance or promise necessary for a proprietary estoppel claim.

In other recent cases, the assurance or promise is less clear.  Although the court can look at the totality of the course of dealings, the case of James v James is an example where the judge found that the landowner had only expressed a present intention to leave land to someone in their will, and not made any promise.  Other cases have failed where no reasonable person would have understood the comments to constitute a promise or where the promise is not sufficiently specific, although a promise to leave “the farm” has been sufficient to establish a claim to whatever land the farm comprised at the date of death.

Detrimental reliance

In the Winter case, the Court of Appeal accepted that the sons had relied on the promise to their detriment, even though they had been well paid for their work on the farm.  Basing their lifestyle on their expectation and losing opportunities to better themselves in other ways was sufficient, without having to prove how they would have lived if they had not done so.

In cases where the detriment can be quantified financially, the person relying on the promise must be in an overall substantially worse financial position than if they had not relied on the promise.

In other cases, the claim may fail if the claimant would have suffered the detriment even if the promise had not been made, for example when the detriment is providing care for a sick relative but this began before the relative made any promise or assurance.

Remedy

The remedy in a successful proprietary estoppel claim is at the discretion of the court.  Unlike a contractual claim, the court does not have to rectify the breach but make a suitable award that does justice to the situation.  In many cases, this will be the fulfilment of the promise but in some cases, particularly where the expectation is out of all proportion to the detriment suffered, a payment to compensate the detriment may be more appropriate.

How we can help

If you were made a promise of property which has not been fulfilled, or someone is claiming that they were promised property by you or a loved one, we can assess the claim and advise you, argue your case, gather evidence, negotiate or mediate on your behalf if you wish and prepare your case for court to be decided by a judge.  Send us an email at cp@wbw.co.uk or call our client co-ordinator on 01626 202384.

WBW Solicitors has offices in Axminster, Bovey Tracey, Brixham, Exeter, Exmouth, Honiton, Launceston, Newton Abbot, Paignton, Seaton, Sidmouth, and Torquay.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. Please note that the law may have changed since this article was published.