His Honour, Judge Paul Matthews, has handed down his judgment in the High Court case of James v James & Ors [2018] EWHC 43 (Ch) (19 January 2018).
The case stands as a prime example and reminder of the tests that the Courts will apply when deciding proprietary estoppel and challenges to Wills based on lack of capacity.
James v James & Ors
Case summary
In summary, the facts of the case were:
- Raymond ‘Sam’ Allen, was the son of Charles Frederick Allen James who had died on 27 August 2012, aged 81 years, having made a Will dated 16 September 2010.
- Sam was not left anything in the 2010 Will and the significant farm land was to be inherited by Sam’s two sisters.
- Sam challenged this based on promises made to him by his father during his life, as a result of which Sam says he farmed the land for low pay for many years.
- Sam also claimed the Will was invalid as his father suffered from Alzheimer’s and dementia at the time.
High Court decision
Proprietary estoppel
HHJ Matthews stated by way of a helpful recap that:
“the law as to proprietary estoppel was not substantially disputed.”
In Thorner v Major [2009] 1 WLR 776, HL, Lord Walker put the matter in this way:
“29. My Lords, this appeal is concerned with proprietary estoppel. An academic authority (Simon Gardner, An Introduction to Land Law (2007), p 101) has recently commented: “There is no definition of proprietary estoppel that is both comprehensive and uncontroversial (and many attempts at one have been neither).” Nevertheless most scholars agree that the doctrine is based on three main elements, although they express them in slightly different terms: a representation or assurance made to the claimant; reliance on it by the claimant; and detriment to the claimant in consequence of his (reasonable) reliance: see Megarry & Wade, The Law of Real Property , 7th ed (2008), para 16–001; Gray & Gray, Elements of Land Law , 5th ed (2009), para 9.2.8; Snell’s Equity , 31st ed (2005), paras 10–16 to 10–19; Gardner, An Introduction to Land Law (2007), para 7.1.1.”
In short whilst it continues to be discussed and debated, most understand a claim in proprietary estoppel to consist of three main elements:
- A representation or assurance made to the claimant;
- Reliance on it by the claimant; and
- Detriment to the claimant in consequence of his reasonable reliance.
Once these elements are found the court may grant relief, ordinarily (but not always, particularly in cases with less clear assurances) on the basis of fulfilling the expectation of the claimant based on the representation or assurance made.
The Judge added that the assurance made must be sufficiently clear and unambiguous in the context. He said there: “is a question as to how clear the assurance must be.”
In Thorner v Major itself, Lord Walker said:
“56. I would prefer to say (while conscious that it is a thoroughly question-begging formulation) that to establish a proprietary estoppel the relevant assurance must be clear enough. What amounts to sufficient clarity, in a case of this sort, is hugely dependent on context. I respectfully concur in the way Hoffmann LJ put it in Walton v Walton [1994] CA Transcript No 479 (in which the mother’s ‘stock phrase’ to her son, who had worked for low wages on her farm since he left school at 15, was ‘You can’t have more money and a farm one day’). Hoffmann LJ stated, at para 16:
‘The promise must be unambiguous and must appear to have been intended to be taken seriously. Taken in its context, it must have been a promise which one might reasonably expect to be relied upon by the person to whom it was made’.”
Capacity
HHJ Matthews also considered at some length in his judgment the appropriate test to apply when retrospectively deciding the required capacity of a person when they made their Will, the ancient test referred to in Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549, 565 having recently come under a legal attack in the wake of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
The Judge confirmed his view that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 did not alter the long established test which he repeated as continuing to be:
“The traditional test for such a case is that laid down in Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549, 565, per Cockburn CJ:
“It is essential … that a testator shall
-
Understand the nature of his act and its effects;
-
Shall understand the extent of the property of which he is disposing;
-
Shall be able to comprehend and appreciate the claims to which he ought to give effect, and, … that no disorder of the mind shall poison his affections, avert his sense of right, or prevent the exercise of his natural faculties, that no insane delusion shall influence his Will in disposing of his property and bring about a disposal of it which, if his mind had been sound, would not have been made.”
Outcome of the case
In this case the HHJ Matthews found that:
- Mr James did have capacity at the time the Will was made, giving particular weight to the medical opinion of the experts at trial and the evidence of a solicitor, who stood not to benefit from the outcome of the case. Notably, the Judge placed little reliance on many of the evidence of the main antagonists in the case; and
- It was not equitable to provide Sam with any relief based on the alleged assurances made by his father. The Judge found:
(a) That no assurance of sufficient clarity had been made and in fact the Deceased had only informed Sam of his intention at that point as to what he would do at a later date, he had not committed to that intention; and
(b) Sam had not suffered any detriment as a result of the alleged assurance. He had been paid more than the other farm labourers for his work and the Judge did not think Sam would have done anything otherwise if no assurances at all had been made.
Comment
This case stands as a good exploration of the tests for these two long-standing grounds for challenging the proposed succession of property under a Will, and a useful tool in assisting clients to understand how their claims may be scrutinised at trial in due course.
How can Nelsons help?
Lewis Addison is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in trusts and probate disputes.
For more information regarding the subjects discussed in this article, please contact Lewis or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online form.