The recent case of Maile and Another v Maile and Others [2025] EWHC 2494 (Ch) confirmed the elements required for establishing proprietary estoppel, which is a legal doctrine used to prevent someone from going back on a promise/assurance relating to rights over property, and the high bar on them:-
- Assurance of sufficient clarity;
- Reliance by the claimant on that assurance;
- Detriment to the claimant in consequence of his/her reasonable reliance; and
- As a result, it would be unconscionable for a promise not to be kept either wholly or in part.
Maile and Another v Maile and Others [2025] EWHC 2494 (Ch)
Background
The claim was in relation to the ownership of the West Hook Farm (Farm), which was owned by Mary Stevens (Mary). Mary had a 2006 will leaving her estate equally to her daughters Ruth and Sheila whilst giving livestock to her grandsons, Steven and John, who were the Claimants. Mary also had a 2011 codicil amending the 2006 will gifting the Farm directly to the Claimants, including the livestock, subject to inheritance tax obligations. The 2011 codicil was revoked with the execution of a 2016 codicil and reinstated the equal division of her estate between Ruth and Sheila. Mary entered into a partnership agreement with Steven and John in 2015 to facilitate the inheritance tax benefits. The Claimants continued to occupy the Farm after Mary’s death in 2020.
The Claimants made various claims and the primary one was proprietary estoppel claiming that Mary had promised them the Farm for years and that they had relied on those promises to their detriment.
Decision
The Court dismissed the Claimants’ claim of proprietary estoppel:-
- The Claimants claimed that Mary stated to them that ‘one day this [the Farm] will all be yours]’ and ‘who else would it go to’. The Court considered them to be generalised statements of current intentions rather than concrete commitments even if they were made by Mary. Mary entered into a partnership with the Claimants in 2015 and there was an option in the agreement for the Claimants to have the right to purchase Mary’s share in the partnership and the Farm on her death. The formalisation of this arrangement undermined the alleged assurances and the partnership became the operative framework for succession;
- The Claimants continued to work and live on the Farm after they had found out that Mary had changed her mind on leaving the Farm to them through the 2016 codicil;
- Steven admitted that he would have entered into the partnership even if he had not received assurances about inheriting the Farm;
- Whilst the Claimants had worked on the Farm all their lives, they had lived there with free board and lodging and household expenses covered. The Court stated that ‘the Claimants have come nowhere near showing that they have suffered any sort of significant net detriment. In fact, they and their family, will have benefitted from the arrangements set up by the Partnership’; and
- The period of reliance was very short, which is different to many traditional cases where the person relying on the promise has committed his/her entire life to the farm.
How can we help?
Ronny Tang is an Associate in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in defamation claims, contentious probate and inheritance claims, Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 claims, Equality Act 2010 claims and Protection From Harassment 1997 claims.
If you need any advice concerning the subject discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Ronny or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us