Gareth Hughes v Carys Pritchard & Ors.

Proprietary estoppel requires a sufficiently clear assurance, reasonable reliance and detriment causally connected with that reliance. Detriment is evaluated broadly and in the round, taking account of countervailing benefits. Unconscionability unifies the analysis and is assessed objectively in all the circumstances.

Where an equity arises, the normal remedy is enforcement of the assurance, but the court may award less where full enforcement would be unjust, disproportionate or harmful to third parties. The death of the promisee is not necessarily a bar to relief, although it may affect unconscionability and remedy. On the facts, the promisee’s farming arrangement was substantially mutually beneficial, and no sufficient detriment or unconscionability was established.

The claimant sought probate of the deceased’s 2016 Will. The defendants resisted and counterclaimed for probate of the 2005 Will, alternatively asserting that proprietary estoppel entitled the estate of the deceased’s predeceased son, Elfed, to agricultural land including Yr Efail.

The trial judge had found the 2016 Will invalid for lack of testamentary capacity and admitted the 2005 Will to probate: [2021] EWHC 1580 (Ch). The Court of Appeal reversed that finding and pronounced for the 2016 Will: [2022] EWCA Civ 386. It remitted the issues of detriment and remedy for determination.

The central questions were whether Elfed had suffered detriment in reliance on assurances that he would inherit the agricultural land, whether repudiation was unconscionable, and, if so, what remedy should follow.

1. Outcome. The counterclaim was dismissed. No proprietary estoppel equity arose, so the question of remedy did not arise.
2. Applicable principles. The claimant must establish a sufficiently clear representation, promise or assurance concerning identified property, reliance, and detriment resulting from that reliance. The court must approach the doctrine holistically because unconscionability is the objective value judgment which unifies its elements. Detriment is not confined to financial loss and is not assessed by forensic accounting. Countervailing benefits must be taken into account.
3. Remedy. If repudiation is unconscionable, the court must fashion a remedy which removes the unconscionability. Specific enforcement is the normal starting point, but the court may grant less where full enforcement would be disproportionate, unjust to other claimants or otherwise inappropriate. The assessment remains flexible and must be made in the round.
4. Death of the promisee. The death of a promisee does not in principle prevent relief in favour of the promisee’s estate. It may nevertheless be relevant to unconscionability and remedy, particularly where the promise was personal and the promisee never experienced the loss of the expected inheritance.
5. Application. Elfed had worked extensively on the Deceased’s land and had incurred expenditure, but the farms operated as a symbiotic enterprise. Elfed was a successful farmer in his own right and derived substantial benefits from access to his father’s land, the earlier gift of Bwchanan farmhouse and land, and the joint operation. Much of the alleged detriment was speculative, unquantified, unrelated to the assurances, or represented expenditure on assets retained by Elfed’s estate. His work ethic and commitment to farming did not establish non-financial detriment.
6. The court also considered the partial fulfilment of the assurance, the failure of the family company, the changed circumstances following Elfed’s death, and the provision made for Elfed’s family under the 2016 Will. Looking at the matter in the round, it was not unconscionable for the Deceased to leave Yr Efail to Gareth while leaving the remainder of the agricultural land to Elfed’s family.

• Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal set aside the finding that the 2016 Will was invalid for lack of testamentary capacity and pronounced for its validity in solemn form: [2022] EWCA Civ 386. It remitted the issues of detriment and remedy.
• High Court. The remitted issues were determined by dismissing the proprietary estoppel counterclaim.