The Old Stag v The New Stag – A Familiar Family Farm Feud

In the case of Gee v Gee & Gee [2018] EWHC 1393 (Ch), the Hon Mr Justice Briggs found in favour of a son who had been cut out of a promised inheritance of farmland and control of the business by his father despite working for 30 years on the family farm for low pay, and by giving up his own career in reliance on assurances from his father he would take over the farm.

Briggs J handed down his judgment on the 11th June 2018 after a six day trial in April.

Gee v Gee & Gee

Case overview

This inheritance dispute case concerned the Gee family (three of which were named John Gee) and the £8.5 million Denman’s farm in Oxfordshire.

In what has become the stereotypical proprietary estoppel set of facts, one son (John M) was effectively told by his father (John R) “all this will be yours one day if you stay here and work hard” only to find that wasn’t the case some 30 years later.

In this case, the father had his head turned by a younger son (Robert), who seemingly badmouthed his brother’s farming acumen. As a result, the father transferred the lot to Robert which naturally aggrieved John M and led to Court action.

Briggs J found that criticisms of John M’s farming skills were exaggerated but regardless, as the promises had been made, and John M had acted to his detriment for all that time it would be inequitable to deny him an interest in the farm and the business.

In order to satisfy the equity, the Judge chose not to award a lump sum payment, which would give a desirable clean break but instead to provide for the transfer of 52% of the shares in the farm business company to John M, along with 42% of the farmland, on the basis that to cut either son completely, would not be fair. In doing so he recognised this was probably storing up trouble but commented that was unavoidable.