Proprietary estoppel: powerful arguments not sufficient to deny claimant a trial

Factual disputes as to the extent of assurances to found a proprietary estoppel claim, whether they were intended to be relied upon and whether they were in fact relied upon, are questions for trial. To succeed in striking out a claim, a defendant must prove that the claimant has no real prospect of success at trial. The High Court has considered this issue, dismissing an application for summary judgment by the defendant in Heyes and another v Holt [2024] EWHC 779 (Ch). The case concerned two properties near Truro in Cornwall: Belmont Farm, comprising a farmhouse, garden, cottage outbuildings and 22 acres of agricultural land; and land at Tregoose Farm, also near Truro, amounting to 38 acres including a 10-acre field known as Dog Park which had development potential. The first claimant claimed that her father wished “the farm” to be farmed by his descendants and that in autumn 2013 he told her and her husband, the second claimant, that he wanted them to relocate to live near to Belmont Farm so that they could learn the ropes in relation to the farming business and take on the farm, which he assured them would one day be theirs. Following repeated requests and assurances during discussions at which her mother, the defendant, was also present, both then and subsequently, the claimants moved with their young family from Guildford to Cornwall and the second claimant gave up his job and had worked on the farm since September 2015. The defendant argued that the assurances pleaded were too uncertain to found a proprietary estoppel claim, that such assurances were neither intended nor apparently intended to be relied upon, and that it was clear that the claimants knew this. The claimants’ actions were speculative and at their own risk. The court acknowledged that the defendant had powerful arguments, supported by documents and recorded conversations, and it would not be easy for the claimants to surmount them at trial where the burden would lie on them to prove their case. However, each of the defendant’s contentions was disputed and the resolution of the dispute would require the court to consider all the evidence. On an application for summary judgment the burden is on the applicant to prove that there is no real prospect or only an unreal, illusory or theoretical prospect of succeeding at trial: see Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Condek Holdings Ltd [2014] EWHC 2016 (TCC); [2014] BLR 574; [2014] PLSCS 190. While the claimants’ case was weak, it was not so weak that it had only a fanciful or theoretical prospect of success. Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator