On enchantment from:  EWCA Civ 387
This enchantment considerations the right foundation for awarding cures in circumstances of proprietary estoppel. Proprietary estoppel arises when an individual provides a promise or assurance to a different individual that they’ve or shall be given an curiosity in property and that different particular person fairly and on the promise or assurance to their detriment.
The case arises from a dispute between members of a farming household over the way forward for the household farm. The Claimant is the oldest youngster of the Defendants who presently owns the farm. The Defendants have one other son (‘R), who can be a farmer, and a daughter (‘J’), who isn’t. The Claimant lived and labored on the farm along with his dad and mom for some 32 years after leaving college in 1982, with growing obligations. The Claimant was paid for his work however at comparatively low charges.
The Claimant had been promised by his dad and mom that he would inherit a considerable however unspecified share of the farm, adequate to allow him to proceed a viable farming enterprise after the daddy’s dying. In truth, his dad and mom had made wills in 1981 offering for him and R to inherit the farm in equal shares topic to monetary provision of 20 p.c of the property for J.
Nevertheless, from round 2008, the connection between the Claimant and his dad and mom started to deteriorate. In Might 2014 the dad and mom made new wills eradicating the Claimant’s inheritance. In April 2015 they dissolved their farming partnership with the Claimant and gave him discover to stop the property on the farm by which he and his household lived.
The Claimant issued proceedings alleging that he was entitled to a share within the farm or its financial equal on the grounds of proprietary estoppel. The trial decide held that the Claimant had continued to work on the farm for little monetary reward as a result of he fairly relied, to his willpower, on varied assurances made by his dad and mom as to his future inheritance of the farm. He thereby happy the circumstances for the estoppel to come up.
The trial decide ordered the Defendants to make a right away cost of £1.3 million (topic to sure changes) to the Claimant to fulfill his expectation as to what he would have inherited. This was calculated as 50 p.c of the worth of the dairy farming enterprise plus 40 p.c of the worth of the freehold land and buildings on the farm.
Earlier than the Court docket of Enchantment, the Defendants argued that the trial decide had been improper to trend the treatment based mostly on the Claimant’s anticipated inheritance. They argued that the award ought to as an alternative have been calculated by reference to the Claimant’s contribution to the worth of the farm or his lack of alternative to work elsewhere. Additionally they argued that the treatment wrongly accelerated the Claimant’s expectation, as he had not anticipated to obtain an curiosity within the farm till his dad and mom’ dying. The Court docket of Enchantment dismissed the enchantment holding that it was acceptable to order a treatment by reference to the Claimant’s expectation and that the trial decide was entitled to make the order he did. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court docket.
HELD: The Supreme Court docket permits the enchantment partially and substitutes alternate cures of both placing the farm into belief in favor of their kids or paying compensation to the Claimant now however with a discount correctly to mirror his earlier-than-anticipated receipt. The Defendants are to be entitled to decide on between these choices.
Causes for the Judgment
Lord Briggs identifies the aim of proprietary estoppel as being to forestall or compensate for the unconscionability of an individual going again on a promise upon which one other particular person has relied to their willpower.
Following an evaluation of earlier case regulation, Lord Briggs concludes that traditionally the standard treatment was to implement the promise, as the only method to treatment the unconscionability. Nevertheless, when the circumstances made strict enforcement unjust the court docket might substitute a cost based mostly upon (however typically lower than) the worth that the promisee anticipated to obtain.
Lord Briggs rejects the concept that the intention of a treatment for proprietary estoppel ever has been (or must be) based mostly on compensating for the detriment suffered by the promisee. The treatment shouldn’t be out of all proportion to the detriment suffered with out good motive, however this solely serves as a helpful cross-check for potential injustice.
Lord Briggs considers that the court docket ought to begin by figuring out whether or not going again on the promise is unconscionable in any respect within the circumstances. Whether it is, then the court docket ought to then proceed on the idea that the only method to treatment that unconscionability is to implement the promise to switch the property in query, however it might have to think about options resembling offering a financial equal, for instance if the property has been offered or if its switch would trigger injustice to others. If the enforcement of the promise, or financial equal, can be out of all proportion to the detriment to the promisee, then the court docket might have to restrict the treatment. Nevertheless, this doesn’t imply it ought to search exactly to compensate for the detriment to the promisee. If the treatment includes acceleration of a future promised profit, it is going to typically require a reduction for accelerated receipt. Lastly, the court docket ought to contemplate within the spherical whether or not a selected treatment would do justice within the circumstances, by contemplating whether or not the promisor can be performing unconscionably in the event that they have been to confer the proposed profit on the promisee.
Making use of these ideas Lord Briggs rejects the dad and mom’ argument that the trial decide was improper to undertake an strategy based mostly on the Claimant’s anticipated inheritance. Nevertheless, he holds that the trial decide didn’t adequately low cost the sum awarded to mirror the truth that the Claimant would obtain compensation sooner than he had anticipated to inherit an curiosity within the farm.
Contemplating the treatment afresh Lord Briggs holds that the dad and mom must be entitled to decide on between placing the farm into belief for the youngsters topic to a life curiosity within the defendant’s favour; or making a right away cost of compensation on the traces the decide ordered however with adequate low cost to mirror the early receipt. If the quantity of such cost can’t be agreed following valuation of the farm it is going to be remitted to the Chancery Division to find out the quantity.
Lord Leggatt disagrees with Lord Briggs and considers that the core precept underpinning reduction for proprietary estoppel is to forestall a celebration going again on a promise with out guaranteeing that the social gathering who relied on that promise won’t endure a detriment on account of that reliance. To realize this a court docket might both: (1) compel efficiency of the promise (or order equal cost to place the promisee within the place they might have been if the promised had been carried out); or (2) award compensation to place the promisee into nearly as good a place as if they’d not relied on the promise. The court docket ought to undertake whichever technique leads to the minimal award vital to fulfill the intention. On this foundation Lord Leggatt would have awarded Andrew £610,000 to compensate for the detriment he has suffered on account of engaged on the farm in reliance upon his dad and mom’ assurances. This displays the estimated further quantity the Claimant would have earned by working elsewhere [Appendix].
See right here for the Judgment (PDF)
See right here for the Press abstract (HTML model)
Watch listening to
15 July 2021 Morning session Afternoon session