Bradbury & Ors v Taylor & Anor

In a proprietary estoppel claim based on an assurance of inheritance, the court must assess the assurance, reliance, detriment and unconscionability in their factual context. An oral assurance may remain operative even though it is not confirmed in writing, provided the evidence supports that conclusion and reliance on it was reasonable. A move, care provided and expenditure on improvements may constitute detrimental reliance even where the arrangement also gives the claimant immediate benefits. The remedy is flexible. The court may fulfil the expectation of inheritance where the parties’ benefits and detriments are broadly equivalent or are not obviously disproportionate, but it must consider all relevant advantages and disadvantages, including non-financial factors. Appellate intervention is difficult where the trial judge directed himself correctly and reached an evaluative conclusion open on the evidence.

The executors of William Samuel Taylor appealed against a Plymouth County Court order made on 16 August 2011. The county court dismissed the claim that Roger Taylor and Denise Burkinshaw had no beneficial interest in Lower Manaton and allowed their counterclaim based on proprietary estoppel, declaring that the property was held on trust for them subject to their bearing the attributable inheritance tax.

The alleged assurance arose from discussions in 2000 and 2001. Roger and Denise moved with their children from Sheffield to share Lower Manaton with William, and thereafter contributed to its occupation, maintenance and improvement. The central issues were whether representations that the property would be left to them had been made, whether they relied on them to their detriment, and whether transferring the whole property was a proportionate remedy.

1. Appeal dismissed. The county court judge’s findings of representation, reliance and detriment were properly open to him on the evidence.
2. The judge was entitled to accept Denise’s evidence about the sequence of conversations. William had first raised the possibility that Roger and Denise would inherit the property, subject to conditions, and later persuaded them to move by proposing separate accommodation within the house. Since the family would move as a unit, a representation made to either adult could amount to a representation to both.
3. The July 2001 draft letter did not negate the earlier oral assurance. It referred to discussions about occupancy after William’s death and did not communicate that he reserved an unfettered right to dispose of the property otherwise. Nor did the failure or refusal to confirm the assurance in writing make reliance unreasonable, where the judge had accepted that the assurance had already been made and that any reservations were kept to himself.
4. Moving from Sheffield, providing care and support, and carrying out improvements and incurring expenditure could amount to detrimental reliance. The immediate benefits of living at Lower Manaton, including the use of its grounds, did not prevent the works from being detrimental: the judge was entitled to find that they would not have been undertaken without the expectation of a greater entitlement than occupation during William’s lifetime.
5. As to remedy, the judge correctly undertook an evaluative assessment of the parties’ advantages and disadvantages. That assessment could include factors incapable of precise valuation, such as family separation and the benefits of the living arrangement, as well as the cost and value of works. It was open to him to treat the case as involving a family arrangement with give and take and to fulfil the expectation by awarding Lower Manaton absolutely, subject to the respondents bearing the attributable inheritance tax. There was no error of law or misdirection warranting appellate intervention.
6. The proposed new ground concerning alleged gifts of works of art was refused. The county court judge had made no finding that Denise was untruthful or that the gifts had not been made; the issue had properly been treated as relevant to credibility only on the limited evidence adduced.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2012] EWCA Civ 1208: appeal against the order of the Plymouth County Court dismissed. The declaration that Lower Manaton was held on trust for Roger Taylor and Denise Burkinshaw, subject to their bearing the attributable inheritance tax, stood.
• Plymouth County Court — order dated 16 August 2011: claim dismissed and relief granted on the counterclaim. The judge found proprietary estoppel established and held that the whole property was held on trust for the defendants, subject to inheritance tax.