Will – Farming business – Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 – Testator parents of defendant adult children making separate wills – Sixth defendant son working on farm and claiming entitlement to farming business – Executor claimants seeking possession of land and property to enable them to administer testators’ wills – Whether sixth defendant qualifying to receive gift of farming business under father’s will – Whether sixth defendant having security of tenure – Whether sixth defendant establishing proprietary estoppel – Application granted
The claimants were the executors of the wills of the defendants’ parents (the testators). The testators had owned agricultural land on the Isle of Wight, consisting of a main house, other houses, an orchard, a duck pond, a range of farm buildings and yards and various fields and other land. In 1974, the father made a will, clause 5(b)(i) of which, made a gift of his interest in a farm, that the father had acquired with the mother jointly, to such child or children of his “who may be working either as employee or partner full-time” in the farming business.
In 1983, the sixth defendant arranged with the testators to carry on his own farming enterprise on a part of their land as well as managing their farming enterprise. In 1986, the sixth defendant married and moved into one of the properties owned by the testators, although it was not transferred to him until 1992. An agricultural tie attached to the property, which restricted its occupation to those employed or engaged in agriculture. The sixth defendant claimed that his father had told him not to worry about the restriction as he would inherit a good proportion of the farm and land when the testators died.
The sixth defendant continued to run his own business and manage the testators’ farming business. He purchased machinery. In 1995, the father died. The mother was the sole survivor of the executors named in his will and held the father’s share of the farm on trust subject to the gift contained in clause 5(b)(i). The sixth defendant continued running the farming businesses. Following the mother’s in 2004, the claimants asked the sixth defendant to the carry on the farming business as before. However, they subsequently sought to recover possession of the relevant land and property so that they could administer the two wills.
The sixth defendant claimed that he was entitled to continue to occupy the land and refused to quit. The claimants applied to the court to determine whether the sixth defendant: (i) qualified, by virtue of his agricultural work, to inherit the gift under clause 5(b)(i) of the father’s will; (ii) had acquired a tenancy of certain parts of the land under section 2 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986; (iii) had established a proprietary estoppel following statements made by the father in 1992; (iv) ought to be allowed to continue to occupy the land under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996.
Held: The application was granted.
(1) On the facts, the sixth defendant did not satisfy the requirements to inherit the gift under clause 5(b)(i) of the father’s will. As at the relevant date, he had been running his own business as a sole trader and it was doubtful that, as the manager of the mother’s business, he was an employee. Assuming the relationship with the mother to be contractual, the sixth defendant was regarded as providing services under a contract which had not been a contract of employment. In any event, if he had been an employee, as a manager in the mother’s business, he had not been a full-time employee as required by clause 5(b)(i), because most of his time was taken up running his own separate business. Accordingly, the land fell to be dealt with under other provisions of the father’s will, pursuant to which it vested in the defendants equally.
(2) Section 4 of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 provided that the 1986 Act did not apply to a tenancy, or to an agreement within section 2 of the 1986 Act, beginning on or after 1 September 1995. Accordingly, if the sixth defendant was to rely on section 2 of the 1986 Act to convert a licence into a tenancy from year to year, he had to show that he had a licence which qualified under section 2 of the 1986 Act prior to that date. However, the arrangement between the sixth defendant and the testators did not confer upon him an exclusive right to prevent them from making use of the relevant land, at any rate for agricultural purposes. The testators had used a considerable part of that land for their own agricultural purposes and there was nothing which had given the sixth defendant any right to exclude them from the land. On a proper analysis, the sixth defendant had had the right to share the use of the land and buildings for his own enterprise as well as for that of the testators. Accordingly, the arrangement had not conferred upon the sixth defendant an exclusive right to occupy so that the arrangement was not upgraded into a tenancy from year to year under section 2 of the 1986 Act: Threadgold v Bahamas International Trust Co Ltd [1975] 1 EGLR 1; (1974) 233 EG 47 applied.
(3) A claim to the benefit of a proprietary estoppel required three main elements: a representation or assurance made to the claimant, reliance by the claimant on it and detriment to the claimant in consequence. The court had to show appropriate scepticism in relation to evidence as to the making of a promise or assurance. In the present case, the sixth defendant had not established the necessary ingredients to raise an equity against the father to entitle him to a benefit greater than the benefit which he would take under the father’s will. As regards the mother, the position was even clearer because she had left to the sixth defendant her half share in the land as defined in her will and further additional interests. Accordingly, the sixth defendant had failed to make out a case in equity which entitled him to inherit more than the testators’ wills provided: Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210, Thorner v Major [2009] 1 WLR 776 and Henry v Henry [2010] 1 All ER 988 considered.
(4) On the facts, the sixth defendant was unable to show that he satisfied the provisions of section 12 of the 1996 Act to establish a continuing right to occupy by reason of the interests in the land he was to inherit. It followed that he had been in possession of the land without the consent of the claimants as legal owners. He was therefore obliged to pay the claimants damages for trespass from 1 October 2007 until he gave up possession. Further, if the sixth the defendant had been entitled to occupy any part of that land under section 12, the court would have ordered him to pay an occupation rent in accordance with the principles discussed in French v Barcham [2008] 3 EGLR 51; [2008] 39 EG 126.
Richard Wallington (instructed by Roach Pittis Solicitors, of Newport, Isle of Wight) appeared for the claimants; The defendants appeared in person.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
Will – Farming business – Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 – Testator parents of defendant adult children making separate wills – Sixth defendant son working on farm and claiming entitlement to farming business – Executor claimants seeking possession of land and property to enable them to administer testators’ wills – Whether sixth defendant qualifying to receive gift of farming business under father’s will – Whether sixth defendant having security of tenure – Whether sixth defendant establishing proprietary estoppel – Application grantedThe claimants were the executors of the wills of the defendants’ parents (the testators). The testators had owned agricultural land on the Isle of Wight, consisting of a main house, other houses, an orchard, a duck pond, a range of farm buildings and yards and various fields and other land. In 1974, the father made a will, clause 5(b)(i) of which, made a gift of his interest in a farm, that the father had acquired with the mother jointly, to such child or children of his “who may be working either as employee or partner full-time” in the farming business.In 1983, the sixth defendant arranged with the testators to carry on his own farming enterprise on a part of their land as well as managing their farming enterprise. In 1986, the sixth defendant married and moved into one of the properties owned by the testators, although it was not transferred to him until 1992. An agricultural tie attached to the property, which restricted its occupation to those employed or engaged in agriculture. The sixth defendant claimed that his father had told him not to worry about the restriction as he would inherit a good proportion of the farm and land when the testators died.The sixth defendant continued to run his own business and manage the testators’ farming business. He purchased machinery. In 1995, the father died. The mother was the sole survivor of the executors named in his will and held the father’s share of the farm on trust subject to the gift contained in clause 5(b)(i). The sixth defendant continued running the farming businesses. Following the mother’s in 2004, the claimants asked the sixth defendant to the carry on the farming business as before. However, they subsequently sought to recover possession of the relevant land and property so that they could administer the two wills. The sixth defendant claimed that he was entitled to continue to occupy the land and refused to quit. The claimants applied to the court to determine whether the sixth defendant: (i) qualified, by virtue of his agricultural work, to inherit the gift under clause 5(b)(i) of the father’s will; (ii) had acquired a tenancy of certain parts of the land under section 2 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986; (iii) had established a proprietary estoppel following statements made by the father in 1992; (iv) ought to be allowed to continue to occupy the land under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996.Held: The application was granted.(1) On the facts, the sixth defendant did not satisfy the requirements to inherit the gift under clause 5(b)(i) of the father’s will. As at the relevant date, he had been running his own business as a sole trader and it was doubtful that, as the manager of the mother’s business, he was an employee. Assuming the relationship with the mother to be contractual, the sixth defendant was regarded as providing services under a contract which had not been a contract of employment. In any event, if he had been an employee, as a manager in the mother’s business, he had not been a full-time employee as required by clause 5(b)(i), because most of his time was taken up running his own separate business. Accordingly, the land fell to be dealt with under other provisions of the father’s will, pursuant to which it vested in the defendants equally.(2) Section 4 of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 provided that the 1986 Act did not apply to a tenancy, or to an agreement within section 2 of the 1986 Act, beginning on or after 1 September 1995. Accordingly, if the sixth defendant was to rely on section 2 of the 1986 Act to convert a licence into a tenancy from year to year, he had to show that he had a licence which qualified under section 2 of the 1986 Act prior to that date. However, the arrangement between the sixth defendant and the testators did not confer upon him an exclusive right to prevent them from making use of the relevant land, at any rate for agricultural purposes. The testators had used a considerable part of that land for their own agricultural purposes and there was nothing which had given the sixth defendant any right to exclude them from the land. On a proper analysis, the sixth defendant had had the right to share the use of the land and buildings for his own enterprise as well as for that of the testators. Accordingly, the arrangement had not conferred upon the sixth defendant an exclusive right to occupy so that the arrangement was not upgraded into a tenancy from year to year under section 2 of the 1986 Act: Threadgold v Bahamas International Trust Co Ltd [1975] 1 EGLR 1; (1974) 233 EG 47 applied.(3) A claim to the benefit of a proprietary estoppel required three main elements: a representation or assurance made to the claimant, reliance by the claimant on it and detriment to the claimant in consequence. The court had to show appropriate scepticism in relation to evidence as to the making of a promise or assurance. In the present case, the sixth defendant had not established the necessary ingredients to raise an equity against the father to entitle him to a benefit greater than the benefit which he would take under the father’s will. As regards the mother, the position was even clearer because she had left to the sixth defendant her half share in the land as defined in her will and further additional interests. Accordingly, the sixth defendant had failed to make out a case in equity which entitled him to inherit more than the testators’ wills provided: Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210, Thorner v Major [2009] 1 WLR 776 and Henry v Henry [2010] 1 All ER 988 considered.(4) On the facts, the sixth defendant was unable to show that he satisfied the provisions of section 12 of the 1996 Act to establish a continuing right to occupy by reason of the interests in the land he was to inherit. It followed that he had been in possession of the land without the consent of the claimants as legal owners. He was therefore obliged to pay the claimants damages for trespass from 1 October 2007 until he gave up possession. Further, if the sixth the defendant had been entitled to occupy any part of that land under section 12, the court would have ordered him to pay an occupation rent in accordance with the principles discussed in French v Barcham [2008] 3 EGLR 51; [2008] 39 EG 126.Richard Wallington (instructed by Roach Pittis Solicitors, of Newport, Isle of Wight) appeared for the claimants; The defendants appeared in person.Eileen O’Grady, barrister