Hughes v Pritchard & ors [2023] WTLR 1335

Analysis

Evan Hughes (the deceased) left wills dated 7 August 2005 (the 2005 will) and 7 July 2016 (the 2016 will). Much of the deceased’s estate consisted of agricultural land, including 58 acres of farmland known as Yr Efail.

The deceased was survived by two children, Gareth and Carys, having been pre-deceased by a third, Elfed. Elfed was survived by a widow, Gwen, and three children: Stephen, Siôn and Geraint.

Under the 2016 will, but not the 2005 will, Yr Efail was gifted to Gareth.

Gareth claimed to propound the 2016 will in solemn form. Gwen and Stephen counterclaimed to propound the 2005 will and in proprietary estoppel. They alleged an estoppel rising in respect of the deceased’s agricultural land, including Yr Efail, in favour of Elfed’s estate.

In an earlier judgment of HHJ Jarman KC ([2021] EWHC 1580 (Ch)), the 2016 will was held to have been made without testamentary capacity and the court pronounced in favour of the 2005 will. The judge held in the alternative that, had the 2016 will been proved, Elfed’s estate would have been entitled to receive Yr Efail by virtue of an equity arising in proprietary estoppel.

This judgment was in part overturned on appeal ([2022] EWCA Civ 386). The Court of Appeal pronounced in favour of the 2016 will. The judge’s findings in the proprietary estoppel counterclaim, in relation to representations and reliance, were upheld.

However, the issues of detriment and remedy were remitted to the High Court for determination.

Determining these issues on the basis of findings of fact made at the original trial, HHJ Keyser KC held that Elfed had not suffered sufficient detriment for the gift of Yr Efail to Gareth in the 2016 will to be unconscionable. As a result, the proprietary estoppel counterclaim failed and the issue of the appropriate remedy did not arise.

Held:

1. (1) Detriment was not a matter of forensic accounting but a broad, evaluative exercise. The court had to take into account any countervailing benefits obtained by the promisee as a result of their reliance. There was a risk of adopting too narrow a perspective. Davies v Davies [2014] applied.
2. (2) Detriment had to be causally related to the representations of the promisor. Detriment taking place before the representations were made might be of indirect relevance to unconscionability but it did not constitute relevant detriment for the purposes of a claim in proprietary estoppel.
3. (3) Unconscionability was not a discrete element of the estoppel, but a ‘thread that binds the other elements together’. Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd v Cobbe [2008] and Guest v Guest [2022] applied.
4. (4) The death of the promisee did not bar relief but was a matter to be considered in respect of unconscionability and any remedy to be awarded.
5. (5) A previous gift of a farmhouse and 17 acres to Elfed was a countervailing benefit to be taken into account, or alternatively was to be considered as part of the holistic assessment of unconscionability.
6. (6) The deceased had, more generally, assisted Elfed in building up his farming business. Elfed’s considerable success as a farmer was due in part to his symbiosis with the deceased. Elfed’s agricultural connections to the deceased had not been to Elfed’s material disadvantage.
7. (7) The deceased had partially fulfilled his promise to Elfed by leaving Elfed’s family all of the deceased’s agricultural land apart from Yr Efail.
8. (8) The provision intended by the deceased to be received by his other children, namely shares in the family company, and the failure of that company had to be considered as part of the evaluation of unconscionability. The deceased had intended to make substantial and broadly fair provision for all three of his children.
9. (9) Granting Yr Efail to Elfed’s estate would leave Gareth entirely without provision. It was unattractive that Gareth might be forced to bring his own proprietary estoppel claim.
10. (10) The death of Elfed had substantial significance. The promise that Elfed would inherit became impossible. Elfed was the passionate farmer; he would never be able to farm the land or suffer the harm of a promise not fulfilled. Gwen would in reality inherit Yr Efail and she was not a farmer. The counterclaim was ‘really about increasing the value of the assets available to Elfed’s family’.
11. (11) As a result, Elfed had not suffered sufficient detriment to make it unconscionable for the deceased to have failed to leave Yr Efail to Elfed’s heirs.

JUDGMENT HHJ KEYSER KC: [1] Evan Richard Hughes (‘the Deceased’) died on 7 March 2017 aged 84 years, having lived all his life on Anglesey. At the time of his death his main assets were the bungalow (Arfryn) where he lived, 79 acres of farmland known as Bwchanan, 58 acres of farmland known as Yr …

Continue reading "Hughes v Pritchard & ors [2023] WTLR 1335"