The Supreme Court rules on proprietary estoppel claim
A farmer who won a proprietary estoppel claim against his parents has succeeded in establishing that the remedy he receives should be based upon what he expected to inherit from them, rather than the detriment he suffered.
His proprietary estoppel claim was brought when his parents disinherited him. He had worked on the family farm for years, receiving less than the minimum wage, in return for a promise that he would ultimately inherit a large part of it.
By reneging on their promise the son was left without a home or a job, with no savings and no pension.
The court agreed that the parents should be bound by their promise and said that the son should be paid 50% of the value of the farming business and 40% of the value of the farm itself.
The parents appealed to the Supreme Court on the basis that the award was too generous and should not have been calculated on the basis of what their son had expected to inherit. The court disagreed with them and upheld the court’s earlier decision. The only concession it allowed was to make an adjustment to reflect the fact that the son was going to receive his inheritance earlier than if he had to wait until his parents had passed away.
The case is helpful to anyone making a proprietary estoppel claim and sets a useful precedent that we can rely upon in future cases.
If you have been financially let down after someone reneged on a promise and wish to bring a proprietary estoppel claim then speak to the experts. We specialise in this complex area of law and are proud of our track record of success. You can read about one of our successful cases here.
For a free case assessment and details of No Win – No Fee funding, contact our legal helpline on 0333 888 0404 or send brief details to us by email at [email protected]
