Contentious Probate – Private & Commercial Litigation Solicitors | Insolvency Legal Advice | https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk James Edward & Associates Wed, 09 Feb 2022 15:15:23 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/cropped-fav-icon-32x32.png Contentious Probate – Private & Commercial Litigation Solicitors | Insolvency Legal Advice | https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk 32 32 Proprietary Estoppel – How reliable is a promise of a lifetime? https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/proprietary-estoppel-how-reliable-is-a-promise-of-a-lifetime/ https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/proprietary-estoppel-how-reliable-is-a-promise-of-a-lifetime/#respond Tue, 16 Nov 2021 10:14:18 +0000 https://magnifylab-designs.com/?p=1553

Proprietary Estoppel – Can a promise made during your lifetime give rise to a claim against your estate?

The Court of Appeal in the case of Habberfield v Habberfield ([2019] EWCA Civ 890) has sought to clarify the issue of proportionality in deciding the level of an award in proprietary estoppel claims. 

Claims for proprietary estoppel are usually associated with the farming industry and claims of this nature were brought by claimants who had worked on the farm for a number of years on the promise that their work would be reflected in any inheritance (or transfer of the land) they had thought they were to receive.

For the doctrine of proprietary estoppel to be applied, the following has to be established:

  1. A representation or assurance was made to the claimant;
  2. They relied on that assurance; and
  3. Suffered a detriment as a result of the reliance.

If the above criteria is satisfied then the Court must determine an appropriate relief.

Background

This recently appealed decision was based on a claim by a daughter (Lucy) against the estate of her late father (Frank). Following the death of her father in 2014, the entirety of the estate was left to his wife (Jane).

Lucy’s claim for proprietary estoppel was based on assurances she claimed her father had made that as she had worked her entire working life on the farm, she was to take over when he was to retire. This was denied by Jane. Lucy had worked on the farm from early 1980’s until approximately 2013. She had relatively low wages and took limited holidays during this period.

In 2013 she left the farm due to an internal family dispute. 

During the trial of Lucy’s claim in the first instance, her claim was substantiated by representations over a period of time and evidence of future planning by the family to include Lucy as the eventual owner of the farm after the death of her parents.

Background

The Court found in favour of Lucy relying on the representations made by her parents. The reliance of these representations led to her suffering a detriment based on her low wages and lack of holidays over the extended period. As a result, Lucy was awarded a cash lump sum equivalent to a large portion of the farm that she believed she was going to inherit. 

Appeal

The case was brought before the Court of Appeal by Jane who sought to argue that the decision was unfair. The basis for the appeal was that Lucy has extinguished her right to bring a claim for proprietary estoppel as she had rejected the opportunity to run the farm with her parents in 2008. The point Jane had tried to assert was that upon this refusal, any representations made could have therefore been retracted by Frank.

Further, as a result of the award, this was disproportionate to Jane’s position given the size of the award and payment (as the farm was to be sold).

The appeal was dismissed. The Court held that the rejection of the partnership offer back in 2008 did not justify denying the claim in its entirety, it was merely a factor to be taken into account when determining how to satisfy equity.

The court considered the concept of proportionality in proprietary estoppel claims. The court indicated that it is not the expectation of the claimant that determines the amount of an award, but the need to balance the detriment suffered by the claimant with the remedy awarded.

This case highlighted the Court’s approach to the doctrine of proprietary estoppel and the impact of promises made during a person’s lifetime and lengthy and costly litigation if clear provisions are not set out in the terms of a valid will.

For more information or specialist contentested probate legal services, call our expert team on +44 7441912822 now, complete our enquiry form via our contact page.

]]>
https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/proprietary-estoppel-how-reliable-is-a-promise-of-a-lifetime/feed/ 0
When You Have Not Been Reasonably Provided For (Case Study of a Claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975) (“the Inheritance Act”) https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/when-you-have-not-been-reasonably-provided-for-case-study-of-a-claim-under-the-inheritance-provision-for-family-and-dependents-act-1975-the-inheritance-act/ https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/when-you-have-not-been-reasonably-provided-for-case-study-of-a-claim-under-the-inheritance-provision-for-family-and-dependents-act-1975-the-inheritance-act/#respond Tue, 16 Nov 2021 09:56:55 +0000 https://magnifylab-designs.com/?p=1595

In late 2014 James Edward & Associates was approached by a client. He was a young man, just 18 at the time and unfortunately his father had died.

Our client was distressed. After his father’s death a Will materialised leaving a small legacy to him and other small legacies to friends and other family of the deceased. The remainder of the multi million pound estate was to be given to his half-brother. Our client was also concerned as the Will had been signed close to the date of death and he was worried about his father’s state of mind at the time of signing.

Our client was concerned as he had always been promised to be treated equally and the deceased had made various promises that he would be maintained until he completed his studies at university.

James Edward & Associates explained that the Inheritance Act allows certain types of claimant, such as a child of the deceased, to apply to the court for provision out of a deceased’s estate when reasonable financial provision has not been made for them either under the deceased’s will or intestacy.

It was clear on the facts that our client had not been reasonably provided for in accordance with the criteria set out in Inheritance Act. Since the Will materialised a few weeks prior to the expiry of the statutory limitation date (being the end of the period of six months from the date on which the grant of representation was taken out), James Edward & Associates promptly made the claim.

Having secured our client’s position we were able to then consider the situation in more detail. Our client’s mother had not been paid child maintenance. The deceased had again promised that in lieu of the regular payments he would ensure that our client would be provided for later in life and on an equal footing. We alerted our client and his mother that this sum may be recoverable as a debt against the estate.

Our client’s mother took independent advice and she decided to assign this claim to our client in order that the claims could be pursued in parallel for the benefit of our client.

We then turned to the matter of the validity of the will. We obtained the deceased’s medical records and, with the assistance of an expert, appraised the merits of this evidence. It soon became clear that there was evidence that the deceased had experienced high levels of confusion prior to his death and therefore there was a viable claim that the Will may have been void for “want of knowledge and approval.” In other words the Will was not valid as the testator did not have knowledge and approval of its contents.

Our client therefore had three viable claims against the estate. The Inheritance Act claim, the potential unpaid maintenance claim and the potential invalidity claim.

The parties proceeded to mediation with the aim to settle. Our client was at an advantage as we had whittled out the merits of the two other claims which were used as an incentive to negotiate.

In particular it would have been undesirable to issue on the invalidity claim, as if this claim was successful the estate would have been governed by the rules of intestacy and the half-brother would have stood to have lost many hundreds of thousands of pounds and, in turn would probably have to have issued his own Inheritance Act claim.

After spending some time deliberating the parties managed to reach settlement and our client achieved a figure 5 times greater than the original offer from the half-brother.

Do you think you have been inadequately provided for under the Will of a loved one or perhaps you know somebody that is currently suffering through this issue?

For more information click here to submit an enquiry and one of our lawyers will contact you within 48 hours or alternatively telephone 0207 467 3980 to speak with one of our solicitors.

]]>
https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/when-you-have-not-been-reasonably-provided-for-case-study-of-a-claim-under-the-inheritance-provision-for-family-and-dependents-act-1975-the-inheritance-act/feed/ 0