What proprietary estoppel means in brief is that where you have been promised a particular inheritance, and in return have acted to your detriment or in some cases changed your life to keep your side of the bargain, then the legal doctrine of estoppel can potentially be called on to enforce your claim to benefit from the broken promise. Interestingly, such claims can be also be brought if the promised inheritance is clearly not going to happen during the promisors lifetime. For example, when a new Will is made, disinheriting the person promised the inheritance.
Do I have a claim against an estate or probate argument checklist. The Free Claim Checker provides a simple and reliable answer, whether you are defending or considering a claim.
See also Contentious Probate
Many of these types of case concern farms and businesses where someone has typically worked for low wages on the basis that they were to inherit the business. But it can be homes or other property.The key requirements for this sort of action are:
- a promise or assurance has been made
- the promise was relied on
- reliance on the promise caused the claimant to suffer detriment
What is a ‘promise’ in a proprietary estoppel claim?
“One day, all this will be yours” is the way a promised inheritance is often brought up as evidence in estoppel cases. But the promise can take many forms, and written evidence is clearly
What is ‘reliance’ in a proprietary estoppel claim?
When a promise has been made, the claimant must believe the inheritance will materialise in due course. The court will also expect the claimant to have relied on the promise to influence decisions on life or career choices. Maybe, moving to a property as it is close the land or farm to which the claim relates in return for the promised inheritance.
What is ‘detriment’ in a proprietary estoppel claim?
Detriment is really loss of what could have been expected had the claimant not been relying on the promise. Often the claimant will have been working for some time at well below market rates in a bid to boost what they expect to be their inheritance, or giving up the prospect of a more lucrative career elsewhere in return for the promised inheritance. The Judge will review the extent of the effective loss the claimant suffered and will expect some evidence of it. Bear in mind that the claimant may also have gains to consider, such as free accommodation which reduces the overall loss.The judge will then consider the balance as part of the process of making a judgement concerning the inheritance.
How much is a claimant entitled to in a proprietary estoppel claim?
If all the elements of proprietary estoppel are established, and the court deems that it’s unconscionable to let the deceased break a promise, the judge will consider making an award. It may be for the full claim, or a part of it, or a financial alternative.The award, if any, will be what the court consider fair in all the circumstances.
How much does a proprietary estoppel claim cost?
Proprietary estoppel claims are usually defended, so there are substantial costs (which can reach 6 figures) on both sides, and the losing party will generally pay both sides costs, so read the paragraph about mediation, and the next paragraph too. Clearly, if the promised inheritance is not significant, it is important to weigh the situation carefully before going to court.
A proprietary estoppel claim is often linked to An Inheritance Act claim, as a fallback.
Which is claim for provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The reason for this is that if a claimant is not successful with their proprietary estoppel claim, it is quite possible that it will leave the claimant in a financial position such that he or she could properly bring a claim pursuant to the Act. If this is the case, it’s important to be aware of the period in which those claims should be made.
STEP Published some information on proprietary estoppel:
In Gladstone v White and others, solicitor Leigh White had moved into a GBP15-million stately home owned by a long-term friend, David Gladstone, after the death of White’s son in 2017. Later they fell out, causing Gladstone to remove her as trustee and beneficiary of the estate trust and ask her to leave. She refused and lodged a legal claim that, over the course of many years, Gladstone had promised she would inherit the property after he and his wife had both died. White had never been given any assurances in writing and Gladstone defended the claim by stating that he had never made any such promise or named her as beneficiary in any of his wills. White responded that he had simply forgotten his promise, claiming that she had given up her career to look after Gladstone, his wife and the house and that she had relied on his promise to her detriment.The England and Wales High Court (EWHC) found against White, ruling instead that Gladstone’s intention was that White would merely have ‘significant managerial role’ in running the property, which was Grade 1-listed. The EWHC ordered White to move out so that Gladstone could move back in. The estate remains in a discretionary trust for the benefit of Gladstone’s family.In Mate v Mate and others (2023 EWHC 238 Ch), the claimant was Julie Mate, one of five children of a dairy farming family. She alleged that her mother had promised her an equal share of the proceeds of selling any of the farmland. In 2007, she said, the farm ran into some financial difficulties and she was encouraged to look into development potential for the part of the dairy farm run by her parents and, after her father’s death, her mother and two brothers. She had engaged a planning consultant and worked with him for many years with a view to removing the land from the Green Belt to allow for its allocation for housing, with the intention of sharing the proceeds of sale equally among the family. However, in 2015 she discovered that her mother and brothers had agreed to sell part of the land to a developer for GBP9 million without informing her. She entered claims for both proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment.She lost the proprietary estoppel claim because she was unable to prove that her mother had ever made such a promise or assurance. However, her claim in unjust enrichment won her an award of GBP652,000, since it was clear that her mother and brothers had been enriched by her work to make the farmland available for residential development. This enrichment was at Mate’s expense, as she had paid the fees of the planning consultant and spent considerable time on the project.’These cases confirm that the nature of any promise or assurance is fundamental to subsequently establishing a claim in proprietary estoppel’, notes law firm Mishcon de Reya. ‘Without this, the remaining limbs of the test do not require consideration by the court and any such claim will fail.’Should you wish to contact us on either topic, please give us a ring or email via our contact page. There is more information about disputing a Will here.Free Probate Dispute Checker What is a Caveat? Contest a Will or Intestacy Problems with Executors etc When Promised Inheritances Fail to Appear Claims for Support