Gee v Gee & Anor [2018] EWHC 1393 (Ch) (11 June 2018)

Gee v Gee & Anor [2018] EWHC 1393 (Ch) (11 June 2018)

The court found that the first defendant did, over many years, intend and represent to the claimant that he would inherit the lion's share of the farm and company, and that the claimant relied on these assurances to his detriment by devoting his working life to the farm for low wages and foregoing other...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1393 (Ch)
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
Proprietary Estoppel Claim / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Family Farming Succession, Assurances and Reliance, Unconscionability, Equitable Remedies
Equity Property Law Trusts and Estates Proprietary Estoppel Family Farming Succession Assurances and Reliance Unconscionability Equitable Remedies

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Michael Gee

Claimant

John Richard Gee

First Defendant

Robert Gee

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Proprietary Estoppel Claim / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proprietary estoppel arises in favour of the claimant over the family farm and company shares
  2. 2 Whether representations or assurances were made by the first defendant to the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the claimant relied on such representations to his detriment

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first defendant did, over many years, intend and represent to the claimant that he would inherit the lion's share of the farm and company, and that the claimant relied on these assurances to his detriment by devoting his working life to the farm for low wages and foregoing other opportunities. The 2014 transfer to the second defendant was contrary to those assurances and unconscionable. The elements of proprietary estoppel were established. The appropriate remedy is to satisfy the equity by granting the claimant a controlling interest in the company and a substantial share of the land, but not the entirety of the farm or company, reflecting both the claimant's...

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part

Orders

  • Declaration that the claimant has the benefit of an equity over a controlling interest in the company and a substantial share of the land, to be determined in further proceedings if not agreed.
  • Claimant to return to his mother the property and shares she gave him in 2014 as a condition of relief.