Breakdown of family farming partnership – Son running farm alone – Father seeking to evict son – Son claiming tenancy under Agricultural Holdings Act – Judge finding no tenancy but holding that son entitled under doctrine of proprietary estoppel to full agricultural tenancy – Whether proprietary estoppel established
The plaintiff (the father) and the defendant (the son) farmed Hopton Court Farm, Bromyard, Worcestershire, which the father owned, in partnership with the plaintiff’s wife and his younger son. Following the breakdown of the partnership in the mid-1980s, the son farmed the 140 acres on his own. In 1986 at a meeting of the four partners, the dissolution of the partnership was discussed and, replying to the accountant who was in attendance, the father said that he wanted to stop farming, the son said that he would like to take over the farm and the plaintiff’s wife and younger son said that they did not wish to continue farming at Hopton Court. However, no final agreement was reached as to the dissolution of the partnership nor the grant of a tenancy to the son. In 1989 the plaintiff’s marriage broke down. At a meeting in February 1989 it was agreed to dissolve the partnership with effect from April 1 1989. The assets were divided up and thereafter the son ran the farm, working full time and paying all the outgoings. In about October 1989 and on several subsequent occasions, the father asked the son for payment, but no sum was agreed. In 1992 and 1993 there were more negotiations which came to nothing and the relationship between the parties deteriorated further.
In October 1993 the son received a solicitor’s letter written on the father’s behalf in effect giving notice to quit. The father brought proceedings and the son contended that he held the farm on an agricultural tenancy pursuant to an agreement with his father. The judge rejected this contention, but upheld the son’s alternative case that he was entitled, under the equitable doctrine of proprietary estoppel, to the grant of a full protected agricultural tenancy of the farm under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and held that the father had by his words and actions encouraged the son to believe that he would grant him an agricultural tenancy in 1989, and that the son, relying on that encouragement, acted to his detriment. The father appealed against that finding and the son sought to uphold the judge’s judgment in all respects.
Held The appeal was allowed.
Even if the son had had a firm expectation based on a clear understanding in 1989 that he would continue to farm the land on the basis of an agricultural tenancy, in the absence of details as to crucial terms such as, inter alia, provision for repairs and dilapidations, the financial situation of the plaintiff’s wife (who would receive a portion of the farm as part of the outstanding financial settlement following the divorce), and the rent and rent review regime, he had not established the terms on which he had expected the tenancy to be based. The son had therefore failed to show a sufficient equity to enable the court to protect his occupation of the land and, furthermore, in the absence of detail, neither had he established detriment.
Jonathan Brock QC and Jonathan Small (instructed by Jordans, of Ross-on-Wye) appeared for the appellant/plaintiff; the respondent/defendant appeared in person.
