On 21 June 2024, the Court of Appeal delivered a significant judgment in the case of Winter v Winter, which centred on a proprietary estoppel claim related to a family-owned strawberry farm.
This case highlights the complexities of proprietary estoppel, a legal doctrine that can provide recourse for unfulfilled promises—particularly prevalent in disputes within farming families.
Proprietary estoppel arises when a promise is made to someone, typically regarding the inheritance of a business or property, and that person relies on the promise to their detriment. The three essential elements for a successful proprietary estoppel claim are:
A clear promise: The claimant must demonstrate that a promise was made to them, often expressed as “one day, this will all be yours.”
Reliance on the promise: The claimant must have believed in and relied on the promise, such as working on the family farm for little or no pay, expecting future ownership.
Detriment suffered: The claimant must show that relying on the promise caused them some form of detriment, typically financial loss or the forfeiture of other career opportunities.
Proprietary estoppel cases are notoriously complex and unpredictable. Success hinges on the credibility of the parties involved and the ability to prove what might have occurred had the promise not been made.
In Winter v Winter, three brothers had worked on their parents’ multimillion-pound strawberry farm in Somerset for most of their lives. A dispute over the business's finances led their father to revise his Will, leaving his share of the farm solely to one son, Philip. The other two sons, Richard and Adrian, brought a proprietary estoppel claim against their late father’s estate, asserting that he had promised them each a one-third share in the business, and that they had relied on this promise to their detriment.
Richard claimed his detriment was forgoing a potential career in the Royal Marines, while Adrian argued that he would have pursued a career in demolition and become an independent contractor if not for his commitment to the family business. The High Court sided with Richard and Adrian, ruling that they were entitled to a share of the business.
Philip appealed the High Court’s decision, not disputing the assurances made by their father but challenging the notion that his brothers had suffered any detriment. He argued that had Richard and Adrian pursued the careers they claimed to have abandoned, they would have earned less money than they did working in the family business.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Philip’s appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision. It ruled that Richard and Adrian’s lifelong commitment to the family business constituted a detriment that outweighed any financial benefits they might have received from working there. The court noted that when a claimant makes a life-altering decision based on a promise and dedicates years of work to a family business, this can be considered a detriment without needing to prove what their alternative career outcomes might have been.
The Court of Appeal’s judgment in Winter v Winter is an important precedent for future proprietary estoppel claims, especially in the context of farming families. It suggests that claimants who can demonstrate they have devoted their working lives to a family business may establish detriment without having to prove financial loss or that they would have been more successful in another career.
If you are involved in an inheritance dispute involving a family business, our team of experts is here to help. Please contact us for advice and assistance tailored to your specific situation.