Inheritance – Will – Deceased landowner making will leaving farm to respondent – Respondent acting to detriment in reliance upon deceased’s conduct – Deceased revoking will to exclude another legatee – Deceased dying intestate – Respondent claiming entitlement to farm – Judge upholding claim – Deceased’s personal representatives appealing that decision – Whether evidence establishing proprietary estoppel – Appeal allowed
The deceased had made a will leaving the residue of his estate to the respondent, a relative who had worked on the deceased’s farm for approximately 30 years without pay. The deceased later revoked the will in order to exclude another legatee. However, he failed to make a new will and died intestate.
The respondent brought an action against the appellant personal representatives of the deceased claiming to entitlement to the farm in reliance upon the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. The High Court held that the deceased’s estate was bound by conscience, as was the deceased during his life, to give the respondent the farm. Regard was to be had to significant statements made by the deceased in 1990, which implied that the respondent was to have a long-term involvement in the farm.
The appellants appealed, contending that the judge: was wrong to: (i) find that a proprietary estoppel case in respect of property to be left by will could be based upon conduct or anything less than a clear promise or assurance that the respondent would inherit; (ii) hold that the events in 1990 were sufficient to affect the conscience of the deceased and to found an estoppel; and (iii) place undue weight on the expectation and detriment on the part of the respondent rather than have regard to the nature and quality of the assurances or conduct that gave rise to that expectation.
Furthermore, the judge’s award did not correctly satisfy the estoppel because it gave the respondent more than the minimum necessary for the purpose. The award of the entire farm was disproportionate in the light of the fact that the respondent had not farmed the land but had only helped the deceased.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The judge had been wrong in law to find the necessary representation, assurance or promise to satisfy the tests for a claim in proprietary estoppel; the respondent’s claim should not have been upheld.
Since the deceased had revoked his will without making a new one, the respondent’s claim depended upon making good a proprietary estoppel entitlement. However, the judge had failed to give proper effect to the requirement that the representation should be clear and unequivocal and that reliance was intended to be placed upon it. The 1990 statement, as recorded by the judge, made implicitly by the deceased to the respondent regarding his estate, did not amount to a clear and unequivocal representation that was intended to be relied upon, or reasonably intended to be relied upon: Crabb v Arun District Council [1976] Ch 179; JT Development Ltd v Quinn and another [1991] 2 EGLR 257; Wayling v Jones (1995) 69 P&CR 170; Jennings v Rice [2002] EWCA Civ 159; [2003] 1 P&CR 8 and 100 considered.
Where the question turned on the deceased’s intentions with regard to the disposition of his property upon his death, a distinction had to be made between a statement as to his current testamentary intentions and a promise or assurance by him to the other party as to what he would do under his will. The latter could be intended to be relied upon by the other party and to influence his or her course of action; the former might be no more than a matter of information, not intended to be relied upon, and that the other party could not reasonably be expected to take as so intended.
It was not uncommon to find misconceptions in relation to wills and succession and statements by an individual on those subjects ought to be considered with particular care to enable their significance to be assessed.
Penelope Reed (instructed by Gould & Swayne, of Highbridge) appeared for the appellants; John McDonnell QC and Michael Jefferis (instructed by Stephen Gisby & Co, of Bristol) appeared for the respondent.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
