header-logo header-logo

27 June 2019 / Jennifer Haywood
Issue: 7846 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate , Property
printer mail-detail

Losing the farm in a family feud

Jennifer Haywood uncovers some valuable lessons on proprietary estoppel from recent Court of Appeal decisions

  • How courts satisfy the equity in proprietary estoppel cases.
  • Explores three recent Court of Appeal cases where parties fell out over the family farm.

Farming families have given rise to a rich vein of proprietary estoppel cases, and the question of how to satisfy the equity in such cases is often particularly troublesome. Lessons can be drawn from three such cases which reached the Court of Appeal in recent years, Davies v Davies [2016] EWCA Civ 463; Moore v Moore [2018] EWCA Civ 2669 and Habberfield v Habberfield [2019] EWCA Civ 890.

The legal principles which apply in proprietary estoppel cases are, save for a controversy about the aim to be achieved when seeking to satisfy the equity, fairly well established, and they were encapsulated by Lord Justice Lewison at para [38] of Davies. In short:

(i)The ingredients necessary to raise an equity are (a) an assurance of sufficient clarity;

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll