Proprietary Estoppel: Lessons for Farmers

At its core, proprietary estoppel arises when someone makes a clear promise about property rights, another person relies on that promise, and as a result, suffers a disadvantage. 

In farming families, this often takes the form of a parent telling a child, “One day, all this will be yours,” leading the child to dedicate their life to the farm, often for little or no pay, only to be disinherited later. 

Guest v Guest (2021):  

The landmark case of Guest v Guest involved Andrew Guest, who worked on his family’s dairy farm for over 30 years based on assurances from his parents that he would inherit a share of the business. When relations soured, Andrew was disinherited and evicted from the farm. The Supreme Court ruled in his favour, confirming that the remedy in proprietary estoppel cases should aim to satisfy the expectation created by the promise, rather than merely compensate for the detriment  

This decision clarified that courts should start with the expectation-based remedy, giving effect to the promise, unless doing so would be disproportionate. It marked a shift from the previously unsettled debate between expectation and detriment as the basis for relief. 

Spencer v Spencer (2023) 

In Spencer v Spencer, Michael Spencer claimed his father had promised him the family farm if he continued working on it. Michael continued in this role for 40 years and did not pursue other opportunities during that time. Shortly before his death, the Michael’s father changed his will, leaving the farm in a discretionary trust. The High Court found that Michael had relied on his father’s assurances to his detriment and awarded relief consistent with the principles laid out in Guest v Guest. 

The case reaffirmed that even where the claimant receives some financial benefit (e.g., rent-free accommodation or pension contributions), the life-altering nature of the reliance can still constitute sufficient detriment. 

Winter v Winter (2023) 

Winter v Winter is another post-Guest case where the court gave full effect to the promises made. The judge found that the claimants had relied on assurances about inheriting the farm and awarded relief that matched the promised inheritance. This case demonstrates how courts are now more willing to enforce the expectation created by the promise, rather than dilute it through financial compensation. 

• Informality is risky: Farming arrangements are often informal, but courts now scrutinise the clarity of assurances and the nature of reliance more closely. 
• Document promises: If inheritance is promised, it should be reflected in formal agreements or wills to avoid disputes. 
• Detriment is not just financial: Courts recognise that giving up a lifetime of opportunities is a serious detriment, even if some financial benefits were received. 
• Remedies are evolving: The expectation-based approach is now the starting point, but courts retain flexibility to adjust remedies where necessary. 

If you’re part of a farming family and have made, or relied on, promises about inheritance, don’t leave things to chance. At Hedges Law our experienced solicitors can help you: 

• Formalise succession plans 
• Review and update wills 
• Draft partnership agreements 
• Resolve disputes before they escalate