20 April 2011 - proprietary estoppel claim succeeds at the High Court in Suggitt v Suggitt

His Honour Judge Kaye QC, sitting as a Judge of the Chancery Division, has held that a farmer's son is entitled to farmland and a residential property on the basis of a proprietary estoppel claim.

The claim concerned the estate of Mr Frank Suggitt, who died on 25 October 2009. In his will, Mr Suggitt left his entire estate to his daughter Caroline Suggitt, the First Defendant, but also provided:

'And I express the wish (without imposing a trust) that if at any time my son John Michael Suggitt shall in the absolute opinion of Caroline show himself capable of working on and managing my farmland that she shall transfer my farmland to him'.

After Mr Suggitt's death, his son, the Claimant, alleged that, contrary to the will, Mr Suggitt had repeatedly promised the farm to him and indicated to him and others that it would be his on Mr Suggitt's death. The Claimant claimed his father's farmland, three houses and associated outbuildings, subject to a lifetime right of residence for First Defendant at one of the properties, as well as the balance in his business bank accounts,

The First Defendant's position was that her father had intended the Claimant to inherit the farmland but only if he demonstrated or proved his readiness and capability to farm the land. She also pointed out that her father had promised her that she would be generously provided for on his death.

Although the Judge held that the evidence as to the promises allegedly made to the Claimant was not strong, and that the will remained a fair reflection of the deceased's wishes, it was more likely than not that Mr Suggitt had made some kind of repeated promise to the Claimant that led him reasonably to expect that the farmland would be his after his father's death.

The Judge held that John had relied on these promises, by working on the farm in return for less than might have been expected if he had been an agricultural worker. The (potentially overlapping) requirement of detriment was also made out, as the Judge found that the Claimant had, by working on the farm and attending agricultural college, planned his whole life on the basis of the assurances given to him. Having held that it would be unconscionable for the estate to deny the Claimant his reasonable expectations, the Judge awarded the Claimant the farm land and one of Mr Suggitt's residential properties. The claim to the business accounts and the other properties was dismissed.

Penelope Reed QC appeared successfully for the Claimant. A copy of the judgment can be found below.

Judgment >>