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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll