Can I Enforce A Promise That I Will Inherit A Stately Mansion?

The High Court has recently given the highly-anticipated judgment on the dispute between David Gladstone, multimillionaire former ambassador, and Leigh White, Gladstone’s close friend and a solicitor, over White’s claim that she was promised to succeed his massive estate, including the Grade-I listed stately mansion Wotton House (the background of this dispute can be read here).

The central issue of the dispute was that White claimed that Gladstone, on numerous occasions, assured her that after he died, she would take on and inherit Wotton House.

As a result of this promise, White alleged that she gave up her career as a lawyer and devoted her time to managing Wotton House and caring for Gladstone and his family. She argues that it would be unconscionable for Gladstone to go back on his promise. Therefore, when Gladstone eventually dies, Wotton House should be transferred to her. She also sought the right to continue living in Wotton House during Gladstone’s lifetime.

Gladstone countered by saying that White had never been the main beneficiary in any of his Wills and he never promised to let White inherit Wotton House.

The law on proprietary estoppel

White’s case is based on the equitable doctrine of proprietary estoppel. In order to succeed in proprietary estoppel, Leigh must prove that:

Establishing proprietary estoppel is a highly fact-sensitive exercise. The High Court, on this occasion, indeed scrutinised every fact presented in its very detailed judgment.

Was there a clear promise?

White alleged promises by Gladstone over lunches that she was to be the rightful successor of Wotton House. However, the Court did not consider that what was said by Gladstone was clear enough that White would inherit Wotton; he was simply expressing his intent then that he would like White to continue running Wotton House with a significant managerial role after his death but it did not amount to a clear promise that she would become Wotton’s absolute owner.

Furthermore, the Court found that Gladstone’s Wills and letter of wishes referring to a discretionary trust structure in which White was only named as one of the several discretionary beneficiaries, as well as his ongoing concerns about what would happen to Wotton House (which he views as his legacy) are inconsistent with any assurances that the mansion would go to White when he dies.

Was any reliance alleged reasonable?

The Court held that White’s reliance on the alleged promise, even if there were any, was unreasonable. First, the Court found that many conversations after those assurances were allegedly made were inconsistent with the assurances. It would have been clear to White that anything that was said in relation to her “entitlement” to Wotton House was not to be relied on as a permanent arrangement.

The Court also stated that it is unreasonable for White, a solicitor who had been heavily involved in Gladstone’s financial affairs and at one point involved in the drafting of documents relating to Gladstone’s Will and Wotton House, to rely on unwritten and informal conversations which were inconsistent with the documents she prepared or has knowledge of.

Was there any substantial detriment?

It is for White to establish that each element of detriment she relies on and that, taken as a whole, the detriment is substantial enough that it is unconscionable for Gladstone to go back on his promise.

White claimed that she has acted to her detriment in relying on those promises. She had to move to Wotton House with her son at considerable personal expense. She had to wind down her legal practice in order to manage Wotton House full-time. She also had to look after Gladstone’s son and daughter who had significant health problems, and Gladstone who was suffering from dementia.

The Court found that White’s involvement in the management of Wotton House in the earlier years was little and does not amount to a substantial detriment. White’s move to Wotton House was held to be more of a personal decision with benefits to her family rather than a necessity arising out of any management responsibilities, for instance, living at a stately home and being able to send her son to an excellent school nearby.

In relation to White’s claim of having to wind down her legal practice, the Court found that White was earning money from the work she was doing for Gladstone and thus there was no financial detriment as she claimed.

The Court looked very closely at the evidence put forward by White in claiming that she had devoted substantial time and effort to taking care of Gladstone and his family. The Court found that the care White gave to the family was out of friendship and affection, not by reason of any promise that she may inherit Wotton House. This is a significant factual finding by the Court in that the detriment claimed must be caused by the promise allegedly made.

Outcome

Gladstone was awarded an order for possession of Wotton House and White failed in her claim.

Comment

This decision illustrates the Court’s meticulous approach when dealing with a claim based on proprietary estoppel. All facts will be closely examined and considered and the claimant has the burden of establishing all of the elements of the doctrine.

Of particular importance is the Court’s thorough consideration of the context and circumstances in which the promises were allegedly made; White’s professional background as a solicitor and her involvement in Gladstone’s estate planning went against any finding of unambiguous promises and reasonable reliance on them. Mere words that in all the circumstances are incapable of generating any assurances or reliance may justify no more than an inflated expectation of one’s entitlement.

Read together with the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment of Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27, it is very clear that anyone who seeks to counter any claim or establish any interest by way of proprietary estoppel has a very stringent burden to prove their case.

If you have a potential claim or defence based on proprietary estoppel, please do not hesitate to contact our specialist dispute resolution team.