In this blog we take a look at the Court of Appeal decision of Winter v Winter for a consideration of what is meant by ‘detriment’ when considering a claim for proprietary estoppel. You can see our blog on proprietary estoppel claims generally here.
This case involved three brothers, all of whom had worked for the family farming business for the majority of their lives, initially working for low wages and with profits being reinvested in the business. Latterly, however, they had earnt well, receiving over £100,000 per annum and with decent pension contributions. They had also benefited from gifts of property from their parents.
It all went wrong when, after their mother passed away, the relationship with their father became strained causing him to leave his estate to one brother only.
The remaining brothers claimed for shares of the family business under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. This requires:
- clear assurances made by the promisor that the promisee would receive property;
- the promisee relying on those assurances and in doing so suffer a ‘detriment’, and
- it would be unconscionable for promisor / their estate to go back on those assurances.
In the High Court, it was considered that all three elements of the above test had been established. It awarded a third of the father's estate to each of the three sons.
The brother who was to inherit everything under the father's Will appealed that decision. The focus of that appeal was whether the other brothers had in fact suffered a detriment, in circumstances where they were financially very well off, had decent pensions and having received gifts of property.
The appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeal. Key to the reasons for deciding was that detriment was not easily quantified or monetarised; a number of decisions about education, training and careers - all of which had life-long consequences - had been affected by the assurances and commitments made by the promisor. When considering detrimental reliance, it was relevant not just what the claimant brothers had received, but what they had given up.
Case ref: Winter v Winter and Clarke Willmott Trust Corporation Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 699 (21 June 2024) (Moylan, Newly, Falk LJJ
This blog was written by Toby Walker. Toby and the Dispute Resolution team at Allan Janes are experienced in bringing and defending proprietary estoppel claims. For any enquiries contact Toby Walker by email or on 01494 521301.