[2025] EWHC 2054 (Ch)

In my liability judgment, I held (at [233]) that Richard succeeded in his proprietary estoppel claim.

I found (at [212]) that Alan and Margaret had made promises and assurances to Richard which caused him to expect that he would inherit North Cowton from before the time he started to work there and that these promises and assurances continued to be repeated over the ensuing decades until the meeting attended by Alan and other members of the family at which the deed of variation was signed on 2 April 2019.

I found (at [210]) that at that meeting on 2 April 2019, following a question from Alan’s solicitor to Richard (asking him “what’s the matter, don’t you trust your father”), Alan gave Richard a nod or encouraging look which was intended by Alan, and was reasonably understood by Richard, to be an assurance that Alan would stand by the indication he had made at the meeting that Richard would inherit North Cowton on Alan’s death. It was an assurance by Alan that, if Richard executed the deed of variation, he would leave North Cowton to him.

I found (at [216] to [220]) that Richard relied on the promises and assurances made to him by Alan and Margaret (the latter being made with Alan’s knowledge) and then by Alan alone after Margaret’s death, that he would inherit North Cowton when his parents died. He did so by choosing not to study engineering at university and instead going to agricultural college with a view to working on the farm at North Cowton once his course was completed, and thereafter continuing to work at North Cowton for a modest income for some 34 years. Richard further relied on the promises made to him by Alan (and Margaret) in 2017 at the time the businesses were split by taking on partnership debts which he would not have taken on if he had not believed as a result of the promises made to him that he would inherit North Cowton. Finally, Richard relied on Alan’s promise that North Cowton would be left to him on Alan’s death when he surrendered his valuable interest in Margaret’s estate by signing the deed of variation.

I found (at [221]-[222]) that when he made his new will in January 2020 Alan acted unconscionably, by repudiating the reasonable expectation he had given Richard, through the promises and assurances made over many years that he would inherit North Cowton, including by reneging on the promise he had made to Richard in order to secure Richard’s signature to the deed of variation.

I found (at [231]-[232]) that Richard had suffered a substantial net detriment as a result of spending all his working life prior to Alan’s death at North Cowton in the expectation that he would inherit it and in executing the deed of variation whereby he gave up assets to which he was entitled from Margaret’s estate and allowed Alan to inherit them instead.

I held (at [235]) that the 1975 Act claim still needed to be considered in case an appellate court should disagree with my decision on the proprietary estoppel claim or if I declined to make an award on that claim which is sufficient to meet Richard’s needs. In respect of this claim I found that (1) Richard was financially dependent on Alan (at [240]); (2) having made no provision for Richard in his 2020 will, Alan had failed to make reasonable financial provision for Richard and the court would therefore need to consider what would be reasonable financial provision for Richard (at [241]); and (3) it would not be wise to reach any definitive conclusions on what would be reasonable financial provision for Richard until I had considered the appropriate relief to be given to Richard on his proprietary estoppel claim (at [242]).