Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2021 #182In consolidated proceedings, the claimant sought a declaration that she was beneficially entitled to 50% of 41 properties on the basis of a common intention constructive trust, a partnership or proprietary estoppel. The claimant also sought relief under ss994 and 996 of the Companies Act 2006 on the grounds of unfair prejudice.
The claimant and the first defendant were in a relationship between 1995 and 2015, moving in together in 1996, and having two children. The second defendant was incorporated on 16 September 1996: 51 shares were issued to the first defendant and two shares w...
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web OnlyThe respondent (who had been the claimant at first instance) was the eldest son of the two appellants. He had worked on the family farm full-time for some 33 years, until his relationship with his parents deteriorated. The respondent then brought proceedings against the appellants seeking a declaration of his entitlement to a beneficial interest in the farm on the basis of an alleged proprietary estoppel. At first instance, the court found in his favour, concluding that the first appellant had consistently and over time led the respondent to believe that he would inherit a sufficient sta...
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2020 #181The deceased purchased a property in Weston-super-Mare (the Weston property) in his sole name in 2002 with the aid of a mortgage loan. He met the defendant in early 2010 and by the end of the year the defendant had moved into the Weston property with the deceased and it became his main residence. The defendant undertook repair and decoration jobs around the property, including repairing the boiler and decorating the main bedroom, and undertook work for others in return for work on the property by them. The general outgoings for the property and for the lifestyle of the deceased and the d...
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web OnlyThe long-term partner and customary wife of the deceased claimed that a proprietary estoppel arose in her favour as to the matrimonial home. At first instance, the County Court awarded her a life interest in the property in satisfaction of her equity. On appeal, the High Court upheld the award of the life interest finding that she had detrimentally relied on assurances given by her customary husband, by not purchasing a house of her own. She was not required to demonstrate in great detail how she would have acquired such a house – by virtue of the representations of the deceased she had ...
Anna Sutcliffe highlights practical pointers for bringing a proprietary estoppel case and suitable remedies, with reference to Anaghara Alice’s expectation that she could live in the property for her lifetime was not only something which she could reasonably rely upon, but was close to a consensual bargain. The Chief’s representations were both meant by him …
Continue reading "Proprietary estoppel: What is fair"
This post is only available to members.
Katie Alsop discusses a proprietary estoppel claim that succeeded despite little documentary evidence and the claimants not being family members With the benefit of hindsight, this case would have been eminently suitable for mediation. It does act as a stark reminder of the obligation on practitioners to discuss with clients the expectations of the court …
Continue reading "Proprietary estoppel: An unusual plot"
This post is only available to members.
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2020 #178T died in 2009, aged 96 years, leaving two adult children, her son, who was the claimant (C), and her daughter, who was the third defendant (D3). By a will document dated 25 September 2008, T appointed the first defendant (D1) and the second defendant (D2) as her executors. D1 was the daughter of D3 and T’s only grandchild. D2 was the solicitor who drafted the will document. Both remained neutral in the proceedings.
In June 2017, C brought a claim for probate in solemn form of the will document and for an order removing D1 and D2 as executors and appointing an independent personal...
Amy Harris summarises the key elements of a claim for proprietary estoppel and highlights the significance of the evidence available to the court in such cases ‘The three main elements of a proprietary estoppel claim do not sit in “watertight compartments”, and judicial discretion is key.’ In Guest v Guest [2019], the court was concerned …
Continue reading "Proprietary estoppel: Broken promises"
This post is only available to members.
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2019 #174In 1966 the claimant and his brother became the joint owners of a substantial farm in Wiltshire and began farming in partnership. The claimant’s son, the defendant, worked on the farm from childhood and became a salaried partner in 1998.
The brother retired from the partnership in 2008 and gave his partnership share to the defendant in return for a payment of £500,000 from the partnership. The claimant and the defendant also incorporated a company, of which the defendant was 51% shareholder, and to which various partnership assets were transferred in 2010.
Relations between...
