A successful claim in proprietary estoppel requires not only a clear and unequivocal representation which is relied upon by the claimant but also that the claimant suffers detriment as a consequence.
The High Court has considered issues of detriment in rejecting a claim for proprietary estoppel concerning farmland in Anglesey in Hughes v Pritchard [2023] EWHC 1382 (Ch).
The claim was brought on behalf of the estate of Elfed Hughes in respect of 58 acres of farmland known as Yr Efail, an asset of the estate of his father, Evan Hughes (the deceased) who died in 2017.
Elfed had committed suicide in 2015 but it was common ground that this was not a bar to relief. Under the deceased’s will Yr Efail was left to Elfed’s brother, the claimant.
In earlier proceedings it had been determined that for many years the deceased had let his children and others know that after his death the farmland would be left to Elfed and that there had been an understanding between them to this effect.
Elfed had maintained his father’s stock and land for 38 years in reliance upon such representations. The question for the court was whether there had been detriment such that it was unconscionable for the deceased not to leave Yr Efail to Elfed’s heirs.
The defendants relied on the following to demonstrate detriment to Elfed: (i) an imbalance of farming work done by Elfed and the deceased; (ii) the construction by Elfed of sheds and bridges on the farm; (iii) an imbalance of expenditure on labour and machinery; and (iv) the sacrifice of family life on account of Elfed’s work on the farm.
The deceased had partially fulfilled his assurance to Elfed by leaving to his family all the agricultural land apart from Yr Efail which was worth half its value.
The court found that the relationship between Elfed and the deceased was symbiotic – working to their mutual advantage.
Elfed’s professional and financial success as a farmer was due not only to his own efforts but also assistance from the deceased.
The deceased’s representations to Elfed needed to be seen in the context of his expressed intentions to provide fair provision for all his children: Elfed would get the farm and the others his shares in the family building company.
The later failure of the company was relevant when making an overall assessment of unconscionability.
Finally, Elfed’s death had substantial significance since Elfed was unable to inherit the land.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
