An equity did not arise when the promises relied on for a claim based on proprietary estoppel were vague. The unjust enrichment claim succeeded because there was evidence the defendants had been unjustly enriched at the claimant’s expense.
In Mate v Mate [2023] EWHC 238 (Ch); [2023] PLSCS 41 the claimant brought proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment claims against her mother and two brothers.
When the claimant’s father died in 1992, he bequeathed the majority of his estate – the family dairy farming business and land – to the defendants. The claimant was upset by the terms of her father’s will, but did not challenge the same.
From late 1990s onwards, the claimant alleged that her mother made promises that the proceeds of sale from any of the land or properties would be shared equally between all of them and that “the girls would be looked after”.
On the basis of her mother’s promises and with the assistance of a planning consultant, in 2008 the claimant began working towards the removal of a green belt restriction on the land and its allocation for residential housing development, which she achieved in November 2015. The claimant alleged that her brothers were aware of her mother’s promises and the steps she took in reliance on those promises.
In 2014, unbeknown to the claimant, the defendants entered into an agreement with a housing developer that gave the developer the option to purchase part of the land for £9m. The claimant argued that the defendants were estopped from denying that, on the sale of the farmland, she and her sisters would receive, with them, an equal share of the proceeds of sale.
The claimant’s proprietary estoppel claim was dismissed. The High Court found that the promises made by the claimant’s mother were too vague and unspecific so as to entitle her to rely on them. Further, there was no evidence that her brothers were aware of her mother’s promises.
The unjust enrichment claim was successful. The High Court found that the defendants had been unjustly enriched at the claimant’s expense. She had carried out the work to have the green belt restriction removed and had secured the land’s allocation for residential housing development. The defendants knew that the claimant was not working for free, but had failed to either stop her or recompense her for her time. The enrichment had been at the claimant’s expense because she had paid the fees of the planning consultant and spent approximately 550 hours working on the project.
The value of the claimant’s services was assessed at £650,000 on the basis that the services she provided were akin to a land promoter who would be paid on a commission basis; namely a percentage of the uplift obtained. The uplift applied was 7.5% discounted to reflect the fact the claimant did not carry out the entirety of the work of a professional land promoter.
Elizabeth Dwomoh is a barrister at Lamb Chambers
