RISE IN PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL CASES IN FARMING COMMUNITIES
A SPATE of estoppel claims in the farming community and two widely reported property disputes in 2015 have demonstrated that cases involving an unkept promise and a property are on the rise. Here, associate at Nelsons Solicitors Noel McNicholas looks at these recent cases and explains the pitfalls involved in bringing such a claim.
Proprietary estoppel is an overly technical term which allows promises to be upheld although there is strict criteria that needs meeting for them to be successful. Such cases are certainly on the rise as demonstrated by two cases in the media last year – Davies v Davies and Rawlings v Chapman.
In essence it’s a familiar tale. A son or daughter toils away for many years at the behest of their parents, perhaps on a farm, for little pay at the expense of sacrificing a career or even a social life.
Their anticipation of being duly rewarded for all their hard work is then shattered when they find the farm in whole or part has or will be left to someone else or perhaps to a charity. What can they do?
There have been a spate of such claims recently and they’re on the increase. Where a promise has been made, which is later relied upon to the detriment of another, it may be possible to ask the court to step in and make the promise take effect.
While it is easy to make and break a promise, it can be an uphill legal struggle to hold it to its maker, either during their lifetime or often after their death. Typical scenarios involve farms, businesses or other property which are principally the subject of the dispute.
For example, a farmer can promise a child that if they help him with the farm for little or no pay over a long period of time, then one day it will be theirs. The child could invest in the farm or give up a different career only to find, much later, that it was left to the farmer’s other children or a charity. In other instances, there could be no will and the estate provides the assets be shared among all the children.
Firstly in these claims, there has to be a promise which is clear. Secondly, the promise has to be relied upon because there is no claim if the child had acknowledged they would have stayed and worked on the farm regardless of the promise. Thirdly, the child must have acted to their detriment. This means they must have given up something tangible and substantial, like an alternative career.
Taken together, the farmer must have acted unfairly and if all the hurdles have been crossed, the court will make the promise take effect but with some important conditions.
Any award must be proportionate to the loss suffered and the court will only award the minimum to do justice. If the child lived at the farm rent free, that must also be taken into account.
Such claims will turn on their own facts. The recent well reported dispute in Davies v Davies (2015) provides a good example of how reliance and detriment factors must combine to lead to a successful claim, although it is currently subject to an appeal to be heard in April 2016.
Most recently in Rawlings v Chapman (2015), the claimant was unsuccessful because the court concluded no promise had been made by the deceased and the closeness of his relationship was called in to question by the deceased’s longstanding and simultaneous relationships with other parties.
While both of these cases also reinforce the notion these disputes relate mainly to the farming community, that is not always the case and the dispute can often concern a typical family home.
Whatever the background and circumstances, specialist advice is always necessary.
If you think you may be affected by this issue, you can contact Noel McNicholas at Nelsons Solicitors for advice on 0800 024 1976.