Gee v Gee & Anor

Gee v Gee & Anor

The court found that over a period of about 20 years, JR made clear representations to JM that he would succeed him as farmer and owner of the farm, and JM relied on these to his detriment by working for low wages and not pursuing other opportunities. JR’s later change of mind and transfer to Robert was unconscionable. A proprietary estoppel arose in JM’s favour. The appropriate remedy is to award JM 52% of the company shares and 46% of the land, reflecting his expectation but reduced to account for later events and contributions by Robert, with the details of the transfers to be determined after further submissions.

Parties
Claimant: John Michael Gee; First Defendant: John Richard Gee; Second Defendant: Robert Gee
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Property/trusts/probate / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; proprietary estoppel established in favour of claimant; remedy to be finalised after further submissions.
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Family Farming Succession, Unconscionability, Remedies in Equity
Equity Property Law Trusts and Estates Proprietary Estoppel Family Farming Succession Unconscionability Remedies in Equity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Michael Gee

Claimant

John Richard Gee

First Defendant

Robert Gee

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property/trusts/probate / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proprietary estoppel arises in favour of the claimant over Denman's Farm
  2. 2 Whether representations, reliance, and detriment are established
  3. 3 What remedy satisfies the equity arising from proprietary estoppel

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that over a period of about 20 years, JR made clear representations to JM that he would succeed him as farmer and owner of the farm, and JM relied on these to his detriment by working for low wages and not pursuing other opportunities. JR’s later change of mind and transfer to Robert was unconscionable. A proprietary estoppel arose in JM’s favour. The appropriate remedy is to award JM 52% of the company shares and 46% of the land, reflecting his expectation but reduced to account for later events and contributions by Robert, with the details of the transfers to be determined after further submissions.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; proprietary estoppel established in favour of claimant; remedy to be finalised after further submissions.

Orders

  • Indicative order that, subject to further submissions, JM is to receive 52% of the company shares and 46% of the land from the defendants, with the mechanics of transfer to be determined.
  • JR to use reasonable endeavours to procure transfer of the St Frideswide’s tenancy to the company.