Remedies under both the Inheritance (Provisions for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 and Proprietary Estoppel

The recent decision in Armstrong v Armstrong provides an illustration as to how remedies are made following a proprietary estoppel claim and further how a remedy under the Inheritance (Provisions for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 can be made simultaneously. The case concerned Richard Armstrong’s claim against his late father, Alan’s, estate, following his continued reliance on promises made that he would inherit part of the family farm, however, on Alan’s death. Richard was not, however, named as a beneficiary to Alan’s estate. Richard therefore pursued a claim of proprietary estoppel to recover the farmland promised to him and a further claim under the Inheritance (Provisions for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 as someone financially dependent upon Alan.

In the prior judgment, the Court found that Alan and Margaret had made repeated assurances to Richard that he would inherit North Cowton. Richard relied on these promises to his detriment, foregoing a university education and working on the farm for over 30 years for modest pay. The Court held that Alan’s 2020 Will, which excluded Richard, represented a repudiation of those promises which was unconscionable.

Proprietary estoppel remedy

In considering the appropriate remedy in respect of the proprietary estoppel claim, the Court focused on how best to undo the unconscionability. Richard submitted in compliance with the promise, he should inherit North Cowton. Richard further submitted that this should be free of its debt, or in the alternative, he is awarded its full unencumbered value. However, the Court found that the promise made to Richard did not include any assurance about the farm being debt-free. Instead, the judge adopted a value-based apportionment of liabilities between the farms (North Cowton and Allerton Grange) to determine the appropriate remedy.

North Cowton was valued at £3.128 million, representing 50.81% of the combined farm value. Richard was therefore awarded North Cowton alongside a proportionate share of the debt at the date of Alan’s death. It is worth noting that following Alan’s death, a further £250,000 was borrowed using the farmland as security. The Court confirmed that this loan should be excluded for the purpose of calculating the appropriate remedy, as this loan was taken out without Richard’s consent and again, fell outside of the promise made. This left Richard with a net interest of around £1.75 million in North Cowton.

The 1975 Act claim remedy

Although the proprietary estoppel claim succeeded, the Court also considered Richard’s alternative claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The judge found that Alan’s Will failed to make reasonable financial provision for Richard, who was financially dependent on his father.

Richard was awarded a lump sum of £650,000 from the estate: £350,000 to meet his housing needs and £300,000 for future income. In reaching that sum, the Court assessed the capital sum required to meet Richard’s housing needs and referred to the Duxbury tables when assessing his income needs. The Court also rejected arguments that Richard’s wife’s recent inheritance should offset his needs, given her own health requirements, and also the importance of a clean break between the parties.

Comment

This case reinforces the principle that proprietary estoppel remedies must address unconscionability and seek to put the applicant in a position as if the promise made had been kept. The Court’s pragmatic approach in balancing fairness, viability, and the need for finality provides a useful roadmap for future claims of proprietary estoppel. It also highlights the complementary role of the 1975 Act in ensuring dependants are not left without reasonable provision when promises fail.