The case of Davies v Davies [2016], a dispute dubbed the ‘Cowshed Cinderella’, has recently been heard in the Court of Appeal.
Davies v Davies
Eirian Davies worked for 25 years on her parents’ 182 acre Carmarthenshire farm, looking after a prized herd of cows. She had two sisters who were described as “out having fun” while she worked. For her trouble, Eirian was paid meagre wages and promised by her parents that ‘one day all this will be yours’.
However after a series of fallings out, the last one being in 2012, Eirian’s parents changed their Will so that all three sisters inherited the farm equally. Eirian moved away and eventually made a claim against her parents, on the basis they failed to keep their promise, which she had relied upon and acted to her detriment.
Proprietary estoppel
This is a claim in ‘proprietary estoppel’, which arises when there is a sufficiently clear promise that someone relies upon to their detriment. Many cases have turned on the definition of (1) the promise, (2) the reliance and (3) the detriment. Together, each of these elements must be present to render the conduct of the promisor ‘unconscionable’.
Furthermore, proportionality must be carefully assessed in any proprietary estoppel claim. Just because each of the elements are made out does not mean the promise should be strictly met.
In 2014 the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision that Eirian had a valid proprietary estoppel claim and was entitled to a share of the farm. In January 2015, the parties went back to court and the Judge awarded Eirian £1.3m to reflect the work and sacrifice she had made in return for a share of the farm.
Eirian’s parents returned once more to the Court of Appeal and have most recently succeeded in reducing her award to £500,000, on the basis that the Judge failed to adequately scrutinise the facts with vigour and did not explain fully the reasons for his conclusions.
Comment
Proprietary estoppel claims are difficult to prove and to quantify. There isn’t always a paper trail to show evidence of the parties’ true intentions because it is often within the family. There may be significant differences in recollections of who said what, when and why.
Even if these hurdles are crossed, the Court still has to come up with a figure to satisfy the equity and justify the reasoning behind it. Arriving at a precise value of the detriment suffered is likely to be subject to wide judicial discretion, especially when expectation rises and falls repeatedly over a long period. Unfortunately for Eirian, she saw her award reduced between two Courts by £800,000.
How Nelsons can help
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our Dispute Resolution team, specialising in inheritance dispute claims.
If you have any questions in relation to the subjects discussed in this article, please contact Kevin or another member of our expert team in Derby, Leicester or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online form.