The court has considered a defence of proprietary estoppel to a claim for possession of a farm in Earl of Plymouth and others v Rees and another [2021] EWHC 3180 (Ch).
The claimants were the owners of Maesllech Farm, Radyr, Cardiff, of which the first defendant was tenant under tenancies dated 1965 and 1968. The first defendant died shortly before trial and was succeeded by his son, the second defendant. The claimants had the benefit of planning permission for a substantial housing development on the farm and other land which was to be carried out in phases over a period of 20 years.
The claimants served notices to quit under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 in respect of the farm in 2018. Those notices were challenged by the defendants and in 2020 an arbitrator appointed under the 1986 Act upheld the validity of the notices and accepted the claimants’ evidence that all of the land was required for the purposes of the development at or shortly after expiry of the notices.
The claimants then sought possession of the farm in these proceedings. The claim was defended with the first defendant arguing that he had been promised by one of the directors of the claimants’ agent that no part of the farm would be taken back by the claimants until required to be built on, that it would not be necessary to give up possession of the farmhouse and that the defendants would be offered further land on the estate to continue the farming business or be compensated to relocate.
In reliance upon those promises, the defendants pleaded that they had acted to their detriment in several ways, including taking on extra responsibilities and by the second defendant committing to remaining at the farm in his 40s and 50s rather than seeking his livelihood elsewhere.
By the date of the trial there was no substantial dispute of fact between the parties; the question was whether the promises made were sufficient to found a case of proprietary estoppel. Could the claimants, by insisting on recovering possession, defeat the defendants’ expectation of an interest in property which the claimants, by their conduct, had raised and which the defendants had relied upon?
The court decided that the promises were not proprietary in nature because they did not relate to identifiable property, which is an essential component of proprietary estoppel: Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18. The promises were also not sufficiently certain: they were in effect promises to negotiate fair compensation.
The acts of detriment relied upon were insufficient: the defendants were obliged to farm in a good manner under the tenancies and were compensated for additional works carried out. The second defendant acknowledged that he had grown up with farming and knew nothing else.
Finally, in 2016, before significant costs were incurred in arbitration or litigation, the claimants had made an offer to the defendants to pay 10 times the statutory compensation payable under the 1986 Act and so it was not unconscionable for them to now insist on their strict legal rights.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator