Have you been promised a gift or other property from a person that has died, but that gift was not reflected in their Will, or did they die intestate, and you are not in line to inherit? In such circumstances you may still be able to claim for the property under the legal principle known as proprietary estoppel.
What is Proprietary Estoppel?
Proprietary estoppel is a legal term used for when a promise of a gift or other property, has not been fulfilled and the courts have the ability to stop “estop” that person going back on that promise if would be unconscionable to do so.
Three Essential Elements for Proprietary Estoppel:
- A clear promise or assurance.
The party seeking to rely on the doctrine of proprietary estoppel must demonstrate that a promise or an assurance was made to them. The assurances or promises can be verbal but may be more difficult to evidence.
- There needs to have been reliance on that promise or assurance.
The party seeking to rely on the doctrine of proprietary estoppel needs to show that they believed and relied on that promise or assurance. Examples of this would be that they worked on the family farm for little to no pay as they believed that one day the family farm would be theirs.
- Such reliance has caused detriment to the claimant.
The party seeking to rely on the doctrine must show that their reliance on the promise or assurance has caused them some kind of detriment. This is usually in the form of financial loss or loss of opportunity such as loss of career opportunities.
Such cases should not be taken lightly. They are well known for being high value, complex and at times, turbulent. Specialist legal advice is strongly recommended.
Recent Case Law
One of the most recent examples of a court case involving proprietary estoppel is Winter v Winter [2024] EWCA Civ 699.
In this case, three brothers had worked on their parents’ farm for most of their lives. The father later changed his Will following a dispute with two of the sons where he left the farm to just one son.
The other two sons brought a claim against their late father’s estate, asserting that their father had promised them each a one-third share in the business and they had relied on this promise to their detriment.
Both of the Claimant’s argued that had it have not been for their commitment to the family business they would have pursued other career opportunities or career paths. One being a potential career in the Royal Marines and the other that he would have pursued a career in demolition.
The court found in favour of the two claimants holding that they were entitled to a share of the family farm.
This decision was then appealed on the basis that had the claimants pursued those careers, they would have earned less money than they did working on the family farm.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and confirmed that the claimants’ lifelong commitment to the family farm was a detriment that outweighed any financial benefit that they might have received by working there.
Contact us
Should you feel disappointed about not receiving inheritance from your loved one’s will or under the intestacy rules, and would like assistance, please call us on 01252 733770 or e-mail us at enquiries@baker-law.co.uk and a member of the team will be in touch.
This blog is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult with a qualified lawyer for personalised guidance tailored to their individual circumstances.
Comments