Cook v Thomas & Anor

An informal family arrangement permitting occupation and farming without an express time limit does not, without more, create an irrevocable entitlement. For proprietary estoppel, the court must identify an assurance objectively capable of commitment, detrimental reliance on it, and circumstances making it unconscionable for the owner to withdraw it. A statement of present expectation about inheritance may fall short of an assurance when its context and the recipient’s understanding show no commitment.

The inquiry is cumulative, but the timing and connection between an alleged assurance and claimed detriment remain relevant. Where the evidence has fully explored reliance, a presumption of reliance has no work to do.

The claimant owned Tretawdy Farm, where her daughter and son-in-law lived and farmed under informal arrangements made after a family reconciliation. Following a later breakdown in relations, the claimant gave notice requiring them to leave.

The defendants claimed that a series of alleged promises between 1996 and 2001 gave them rights to occupy the farmhouse, farm the land and ultimately inherit the property. They relied principally on proprietary estoppel, and alternatively on constructive trust and unjust enrichment. Mr Recorder Stephen Eyre, in the Hereford County Court, rejected the counterclaim, ordered possession, and awarded damages and costs to the claimant.

The defendants appealed principally against the recorder’s findings about the alleged assurances, their reliance, and the cumulative effect of the parties’ conduct.

1. Appeal dismissed. Lloyd LJ, with whom Sullivan and Laws LJJ agreed, held that the recorder was entitled to make the factual findings he did. An appellate court will rarely disturb primary findings made after hearing oral evidence where credibility is in issue, particularly where the trial judge has carefully assessed the reliability of each witness.

2. The 1996 arrangement was an informal permission for the defendants to place a mobile home on the land and farm it rent-free. Its open-ended character did not make it perpetual or irrevocable. The alleged arrangements concerning a bedroom and later accommodation in the farmhouse were likewise not assurances of an indefinite right to remain.

3. Although the claimant had said, in substance, that the property would be the defendants’ after her death, the recorder was entitled to find that this expressed an expectation rather than a commitment. The defendants understood it as what might ordinarily be expected by an only child, and identified no detrimental act undertaken in reliance on it.

4. The recorder had considered the alleged assurances and conduct both individually and cumulatively. He was entitled to conclude that there was no assurance combined with detrimental action that made it unconscionable for the claimant to insist on her legal rights. The timing of works was relevant to whether they were caused by any representation.

5. The alternative claims also failed. There was no common intention that the defendants should remain indefinitely; at most there was an open-ended licence terminable on reasonable notice. The work undertaken on the house and farm was substantially for the defendants’ own use, benefit and convenience, so it did not establish unjust enrichment. The recorder was entitled to award damages for trespass after the notice to quit and to award the successful claimant her costs. CPR rule 44.15 did not require disclosure of the claimant’s legal-expenses insurance policy in the circumstances.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — The defendants’ appeal was dismissed in [2010] EWCA Civ 227. The recorder’s possession order, damages award and costs order were upheld.
• Hereford County Court — Mr Recorder Stephen Eyre rejected the defendants’ counterclaim based on proprietary estoppel and related claims, ordered possession for the claimant, and awarded damages for use and occupation and costs.