Same as the recent case of Maile and Another v Maile and Others [2025] EWHC 2494 (Ch), which is discussed in our blog here, the Court in the case of Scott v The Estate of Richard Norman Scott and Others [2025] EWHC 2796 (Ch), when considering whether the claimant suffered detriment in reliance on a promise:- (1) weighed up the benefits and detriments; and (2) considered the detriment that the claimant suffered that were incapable of being expressed in financial terms, like in this case, the breakdown of his marriage and lack of autonomy.
Scott v The Estate of Richard Norman Scott and Others [2025] EWHC 2796 (Ch)
Background
The deceased Richard Norman Scott died in June 2019 leaving an estate with parcels of farmland. He had 19 children – 6 with his first wife Janet and 7 with his second wife Jennifer. Adam Scott was Richard’s second child with his second wife and had worked extensively on the family farm throughout his life. In 1985, Richard promised to ‘set Adam up in farming’ after a dispute that led to Adam returning to work on the farm. In 1994-1995, Richard and Adam entered into a car boot sales partnership that became highly profitable. In 1995, Richard made a will that promised Adam a 40-year tenancy of farms and an option to purchase them at probate value. In 2002, Adam purchased 100 acre of Giantswood farm from Richard for £500. In 2003 and 2007, Richard made two invalid wills. In September and December 2016, Richard executed new wills that made little or no provision for Adam. In 2021, Adam sold 35 acres of Giantswood farm to a developer for £8.75 million. Adam challenged the validity of Richard’s 2016 wills and sought to enforce proprietary estoppel based on Richard’s promises, whilst Jennier claimed that tenancies granted to Adam were shams.
Decision
The Court dismissed all three claims of the parties:-
- Richard’s promises about future ownership of the farm were withdrawn in 2003 and Adam had not suffered a net detriment through his reliance on those promises;
- Richard showed his intention to withdraw his promise to Adam in his 2003 and 2007 wills, and Adam was aware of this change in testamentary intentions at the time. Therefore, Adam did not continue working on the farm in reliance on the 1995 promise;
- Adam benefited from the purchase and sale of the Giantswood farm, which yielded £8.75 million when sold in 2021;
- Richard made his promise to Adam in 1995 when he had had just one child with Jennifer. He had four more children with Jennifer. It was not unconscionable that Richard departed from those promises in the light of those changed circumstances. The Court stated that ‘even if no effect is given to Richard’s promises in 1995, Adam has obtained, from Giantswood alone, more than Richard’s 18 other children and his wife can possibly obtain from Richard’s estate.’;
- Despite his fronto-temporal dementia with progressive nonfluent aphasia, Richard had testamentary capacity and knowledge and approval of the 2016 wills, so the 2016 wills were valid; and
- There was insufficient evidence that the agricultural tenancies were shams designed to create a false impression for planning permission, insurance or car boot sale purposes.
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