Farmer secures deceased relative's farm as proprietary estoppel resurfaces

A farmer who claimed that he should inherit the farm of a relative who had died intestate has won his claim in the House of Lords, relying on proprietary estoppel.

In a unanimous decision the five law lords found that David Thorner, a Somerset farmer, had proved that his father's cousin Peter Thorner had intended to leave the farm to him even though he never expressly said he would (Thorner v Majors [2009] UKHL 18).

The doctrine of proprietary estoppel resurfaced in the Lords in the Yeoman's Row v Cobbe last summer after an absence of more than a hundred years.

Lord Scott, who gave the lead speech in Yeoman's Row, was sitting in Thorner but made no reference to Yeoman's Row, while the other law lords distinguished Thorner on the facts.

Gareth Williams, head of agriculture and rural business at Hewitsons in Northampton, welcomed the ruling as a clear restatement of the rule.

While there is no definitive definition of the proprietary estoppel it is generally agreed that the doctrine is based on three elements: representation made to the claimant, on which he relies, and that reliance causes him a detriment.

"The Court of Appeal seemed to infer that the person making the representation intended that the representation would be relied upon, which would have added a fourth, subjective test," said Williams. "The lords have re-stated the correct position from which the Court of Appeal appeared to have departed."

But Williams said that the Court of Appeal would have taken judges into 'the uncomfortable realm of the subjective', requiring them to carry out extensive examinations of the facts and circumstances to determine what the parties may have intended.

This article first appeared in Solicitors Journal on March 31. To read it in full click here (Please note you may not be able to view this unless you are a subscriber to www.solicitorsjournal.com)