News

Proprietary Estoppel: Just an empty promise?

  • June 08, 2018
  • By Hunters Law

A number of 2018 cases have turned on the equitable principle of ‘proprietary estoppel’ in a farming context.

Under the principle of proprietary estoppel, the court may enforce an assurance or promise given by one person to another if that person has relied on it to their detriment. In well-publicised faming cases, such assurances have typically involved promises to inherit the farm on the farmer’s death or retirement, as a result of which the claimant has worked for nothing, or very little, over a long period of time in the expectation of receiving the farm ultimately.

The recent cases confirm that the evidential burden of proving a proprietary estoppel claim remains high, and mere passing comments are unlikely to be sufficient. What is required is an assurance or promise of future conduct intended to be acted upon. However, as each case will turn on its particular facts, property owners and potential claimants should be aware of the circumstances in which a claim might arise, keep them in mind (as the relevant facts often develop over many years) and, if necessary, keep records to support their positions.

Usually an assurance will be in the form of words or conduct that encourage the belief that property will pass to someone in the future. However, a recent case highlights that inaction on the part of an owner might also constitute an assurance if they have acquiesced to someone acting to their detriment in reliance on a belief that they have formed.

As above, where a claimant has worked on the farm for nothing or very little, detrimental reliance might be clear to spot. However, in another recent case, the claimant’s working habits were not unexpected for a normal person in her position, but still amounted to detrimental reliance.

A claim for proprietary estoppel might be seen as a last resort for a disappointed party and will usually be brought after the event which confirms their disappointment. Any claim will bring uncertainty, emotional stress and significant financial expense to the claimant and defendant. If you think you may be affected by the principles of proprietary estoppel in any way, either as a property owner or potential claimant, we would recommend taking legal advice before rather than after the event, as there may be alternative means of resolving the issue.

For more information, please contact the partner having responsibility for your affairs or any partner in the Private Client Department here.

Related News

Feb 12, 2020
Vanina Wittenburg comments on digital assets and compliance with AML laws in STEP Journal
Dec 20, 2019
Vanina Wittenburg discusses estate planning for digital assets
Sep 19, 2019
The commorientes rule: a warning
Sep 19, 2019
Making and Managing Investments as an Attorney
May 13, 2019
Daniel Watson discusses how it is time to treat trusts with neutrality and fairness in the FTAdviser
May 08, 2019
Daniel Watson’s article on the treatment of commonly used trusts published in Taxation
Apr 18, 2019
Daniel Watson examines the recently launched public consultation on the taxation of trusts in Bloomberg BNA
Mar 12, 2019
Whittaker v Hancock
Mar 12, 2019
Probate court fees
Feb 27, 2019
Vanina Wittenburg examines Capital Gains Tax relief for principal private residences in the Official Law Journal for the City of Westminster Law Society

© Hunters Law LLP 2020 | Privacy NoticeLegal & Regulatory | Cookies Policy | Complaints Procedure

Hunters Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (number 657218)