Broken promises and the law

This is a proprietary estoppel case law update for Morton (as executrix of the estate of Jennifer Ruth Morton) v Morton and another [2022] EWHC 163 (Ch).

The start of this year saw the High Court handing down judgment in another property dispute over a family farm. The case provides a useful update on how the court can intervene when promises made and relied upon are subsequently broken.

In Morton, a dispute arose between two siblings, Julie and Simon, following the death of their mother, Jennifer. Their late father, Geoffrey, had accumulated various farming assets during his lifetime, most of which came to be held by Jennifer in her sole name (as the surviving joint owner) upon Geoffrey’s death. Jennifer later bequeathed these assets under the terms of her Will for the benefit of Julie. 

Simon claimed that Geoffrey had made assurances to him that he would ultimately inherit the farming business. The court was therefore asked to consider the principle of proprietary estoppel in respect of the farmland and whether the land should in fact be transferred to Julie under the terms of the Will. 

As was set out in the seminal case of Thorner v Major in 2009, proprietary estoppel is a principle which seeks to prevent someone from backtracking on a promise, representation or assurance made, once the other person has relied upon the promise to their detriment. Please see our earlier article: ‘Were you promised a share in a property which is now being reneged upon?’ for further information.

In this case, Simon claimed that Geoffrey had made representations or assurances to him that he would ultimately inherit the farming business. He said that he relied upon these representations to his detriment, by embarking on a three-year course at agricultural college and later devoting upwards of 100 hours a week on the farm for modest remuneration and investing in the farming business.

After hearing all of the evidence, the court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Geoffrey did assure Simon that he would ultimately be given an interest in the farm, and that Simon acted to his detriment in reliance upon those assurances. The court found that these assurances were binding on Jennifer’s estate, on the basis Geoffrey made the relevant assurances on behalf of himself and Jennifer, and that Jennifer was fully aware of at least some of the assurances and had been content for Geoffrey to make them on her behalf. It was therefore unconscionable for Jennifer to repudiate the assurances as she did when she made her Will.

As a result, Simon’s claim in proprietary estoppel was successful.

The court then turned its attention to the appropriate remedy to award. The court has a wide and flexible discretion on what relief to grant and can take into account many factors. The general rule is that the court will only grant the minimum equity necessary in order to do justice. There are, however, competing thoughts on how this should be achieved. One approach is to require the promise to be given effect to. For example, in Thorner v Major, a promise by a farmer to his cousin that he would inherit the farm was enforced by requiring the transfer of the farm. The alternative approach is to compensate for the detriment suffered (i.e. not to transfer the land but rather to make an award of damages). More recent authorities favour a blended approach, looking at the claimant’s expectation first, and then considering the detriment suffered, with an overall regard to ensuring proportionality and avoiding an unconscionable result.

In reaching its decision in Morton, the court had regard to the recent case of Guest v Guest. In that case, the court sought to achieve a “clean break” between the parties by making an award of damages, rather than ordering the transfer of the farm. Guest is now under appeal to the Supreme Court, but the judge in Morton did not want to delay handing down judgment in this case pending the outcome of that appeal.

The judge found that the promise made to Simon (that he would inherit the farming business) was limited to part of the farmland only (Reddish Hall Farm). A different part of the land (Fairoak Grange) had been purchased after Geoffrey’s death and so fell outside of the land that was promised. With that in mind, the court ordered that Simon’s shares of the partnership assets should be adjusted and enlarged, and awarded him the benefit of an option to buy-out the estate’s share in the land.

At Birketts LLP, our Property Litigation Team is ranked in the top tier by legal commentators and we can help you to bring or defend claims involving the principles of proprietary estoppel, as in Morton. Our Estate Planning and Wills Team (also ranked in the top tier) can similarly advise on succession planning and drafting Wills and trust documents.

For further assistance or advice on property disputes, please contact Laura Tanguay on [email protected] or 01473 299188 or Lucy Grunwell on [email protected] or 01473 921761.