What is proprietary estoppel?

Anjali Narshi, contentious probate specialist at Lodders, explains what proprietary estoppel is and shares some recent cases regarding this legal doctrine.

What is proprietary estoppel?

Proprietary estoppel is a legal remedy that can be used to stop a person from going back on earlier promises to transfer property or land to another person. It is commonly used in domestic contexts and often for estate disputes, such as when a landowner goes back on their earlier promise for an individual to inherit their property.

There are three requirements that need to be met in order to succeed in claiming proprietary estoppel, these are:

• A promise or assurance – this can be either explicitly or implicitly made to the claimant by another that the claimant has an interest in the property which is more than a mere hope.
• A reliance – the claimant must have relied on the promise or assurance, and this must cause them to act in a way that they would not have otherwise done.
• A detriment – the claimant must have suffered a sufficiently substantial detriment as a result of their reliance on the promise or assurance; this does not have to be a financial detriment.

The court will consider all three of these requirements, and the claimant must also prove that it is unreasonable for this promise to have been broken.

How to protect your estate from proprietary estoppel claims

As proprietary estoppel claims are usually verbal promises, and therefore not physically documented (although sometimes there may be some written evidence in support of a claim or evidence of conduct over a period of time), the most sensible way to protect yourself from these claims is by not making promises or creating expectations for a deal you do not intend to fulfil.

Preparing a will can also help to protect your estate as it can be used to clearly demonstrate who you want to be a beneficiary; provided it does not go against any promises you have made which have caused another to suffer a detriment as described above. Further protection and clarification can also be provided by writing an accompanying letter of wishes to clearly explain these decisions and your desired outcome.

Recent proprietary estoppel cases

Winter vs Winter (2024)

The case of Winter vs Winter saw brothers Richard and Adrian Winter, two of three brothers working on their parents’ multi-million pound strawberry farming business, bring a proprietary estoppel claim against their father’s estate. Richard and Adrian had been left no share in the farming business under their father’s will after a disagreement and so it was left solely to just one of the three brothers, Phillip. Richard and Adrian claimed that their father had promised that the brothers would each inherit one-third of their father’s share in the business, and because of this, Richard had decided to put aside his ambition to join the Royal Marines and work in the family business. Similarly, Adrian argued that he had given up his desire to pursue a career in demolition and become an independent contractor and had instead devoted his life to the farming business.

The High Court accepted Richard and Adrian’s claims and ordered that they should be provided with their respective shares of the family business. Their brother Phillip appealed the case and argued that Richard and Adrian has not suffered any detriment as they had made more money working for the farm than they would otherwise have done in their preferred careers. As the detriment does not always have to be financial, the Court of Appeal upheld Richard and Adrian’s claim and stated that committing to working for the family business for their entire life was still considered a sufficient detriment.

A full copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgement can be found here.

Teasdale vs Carter (2023)

Described by a High Judge as “one of the most regrettable pieces of litigation” they had ever come across, the case of Teasdale vs Carter saw that during Mr and Mrs Teasdale’s divorce, their daughter Rebecca had claimed a property on the family farm was hers by virtue of proprietary estoppel.

Rebecca’s claim was founded on both expenditure (including payment of the mortgage) and labour on the home as well as promises from her father that this would be her forever home. While her mother was aware of these promises, she argued that the money Rebecca had put into the property amounted to no more than putting ‘her stamp’ on it as a tenant rather than someone who would inherit the house. Despite her mother’s appeals, Rebecca was given the property and her mother was ordered to pay associated legal costs. The legal costs far exceeded the value of the property, and the family relationship was further damaged, making this a regrettable case.

A full copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgement can be found here.

How we can help

Proprietary estoppel cases highlight the importance of succession planning and preparing a will to ensure there is no confusion as to who your estate should be passed on to.

If you would like help with planning your estate or need proprietary estoppel advice, please do not hesitate to get in touch with the Lodders Dispute Resolution team today.