Farming proprietary estoppel claim succeeds despite change of will

If an assurance is reasonably relied upon by a promisee to its detriment, then it is too late for the promisor to change its mind. Detrimental reliance renders an initially revocable assurance irrevocable. The High Court considered a farming proprietary estoppel claim in Spencer v Estate of John Mitchell Spencer and others [2023] EWHC 2050. The case concerned farmland in Lincolnshire which the claimant, Michael Spencer, farmed with his late father, John, over a period of 40 years. Michael claimed that John had promised that he would inherit freehold farmland of around 405 acres on John’s death, and that he had acted to his detriment in reliance on that assurance such that it would be unconscionable to allow John to renege on it. Until 2018, John’s wills had left the land to Michael but, in a new will made shortly before his death, the land was left to trustees of a discretionary trust for his children and grandchildren. The judge considered Michael to be essentially an honest witness and accepted his evidence that his father had made statements, on many occasions, usually during arguments, the gist of which was that Michael would inherit the farm. Such assurances had been a significant inducement to Michael to continue working with John on the farm, despite a difficult working relationship. The judge decided that Michael had positioned his working life in significant part on the basis of the assurances that he would receive the farm, and it was impossible to now unpick what he might have done differently with his life over 40 years if there had never been such assurances. Michael undoubtedly enjoyed substantial benefits as a result of his hard work and commitment. He had rent-free accommodation and most of his living expenses were paid. His partnership capital account and pension fund together amounted to almost £2,146,000. However, the judge decided that unless the promises were kept, Michael would suffer detriment. The fact that John felt able to change his will in 2018, believing, erroneously, that Michael was dying, was largely irrelevant. If the assurance is reasonably relied upon by the promisee to his detriment, it is too late for the promisor to change his mind. There had been no change of circumstances justifying the repudiation of the assurances. In satisfaction of the expectation, the farmland was transferred to Michael. Quarry land where permission for the extraction of minerals had been granted after John’s death were excluded, otherwise Michael would receive an unintended windfall, but the agricultural value of that land was included. Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator