It’s unsurprising that farming and agricultural estates across the region are usually handed down through generations, but the expectations of some family members may need be managed.
There is a steady flow of court decisions following claims by descendants who say they were promised some or all of the family farm. These types of claim, usually based on proprietary estoppel, can prove expensive and very distressing.
Recent cases provide valuable insight for those who may find themselves caught up in contentious probate claims involving farms, or want to pre-empt future disputes.
What is proprietary estoppel?
Proprietary estoppel is the equitable principle by which the defendant is prevented from reneging on a promise or representation made to the claimant. Put simply, the claimant must prove an assurance or promise was made, and they reasonably relied on this to their detriment.
Conversations within farming and agricultural families are bound to take place over many years – it’s entirely natural that there will be discussions and comments about the future of a farm. It’s also not unusual for family members (often the owner’s children) to remain on the farm and work at a low pay for years with the expectation of inheriting the farm.
Problems can arise if a purported promise does not materialise on the owner’s death. However, proving proprietary estoppel on the facts can be particularly challenging.
What must be proved?
There are three key ingredients necessary for a proprietary estoppel to arise:
- An assurance of sufficient clarity made by the defendant;
- Reliance by the claimant on that assurance; and
- Detriment to the claimant in consequence of reasonable reliance on the assurance or promise.
Clear assurance
An assurance or promise must be clear and unequivocal. The court in Maile v Maile [2025] EWHC 2494 (Ch) stated that generalised assurances, such as by a grandmother to her two grandsons of inheriting a large Devon farm, were not actionable.
There was no documentary evidence to support the claimants’ oral testimony. Even if their grandmother had made the comments (made when the boys were as young as 10 and then into their teens), they were “generalised statements” which could not reasonably have been interpreted to mean they would directly inherit the estate (bypassing their mother and aunt).
Earlier cases have regularly demonstrated that an adult child with evidence, such as letters and witnesses to conversations, to support the claim of a promise of inheriting a farm (or part of it) can succeed.
Reliance and detriment
In Armstrong v Armstrong [2025] EWHC 2054 (Ch) the claimant, Richard, was assured by his parents, Alan and Margaret, that he would inherit one of two family farms. After his mother’s death, Alan disinherited him; and on Alan’s death the whole estate went to the Richard’s brother and son. Richard’s claim succeeded. He had relied on his parents’ promises in not going to university and working on the farm for 34 years for a modest income. The court held that Alan had reneged on his promise to Richard and his new Will was unconscionable.
How we can help you
If you are concerned about an inheritance dispute involving a farming or agricultural estate on an owner’s death, it is vital to take specialist legal advice before taking any steps.
Without clear, unequivocal assurances or promises a claim may be difficult to prove. Our experienced contentious probate team are available to give you prompt and robust advice.
Please contact Victoria Griffiths on 01562 819181 or email her at victoria.griffiths@mfgsolicitors.com.