Guest v Guest & Anor

Guest v Guest & Anor

The claimant established, on the evidence, that his father made sufficiently clear assurances over many years that he would inherit a substantial share of Tump Farm, that he reasonably relied on these assurances to his significant detriment by devoting his working life to the farm for modest reward, and that it would be unconscionable for the parents to resile from those assurances. The appropriate remedy is a lump sum reflecting 50% of the value of the farming business and 40% of the value of the land and buildings, both after tax, to achieve a clean break.

Parties
Claimant: Andrew Guest; Defendant: David Guest; Defendant: Josephine Guest
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Property/trusts/probate / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Inheritance, Family Farming Succession, Testamentary Freedom, Equitable Remedies
Equity Property Law Trusts and Estates Proprietary Estoppel Inheritance Family Farming Succession Testamentary Freedom Equitable Remedies

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Guest

Claimant

David Guest

Defendant

Josephine Guest

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property/trusts/probate / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was given a sufficiently clear assurance of inheritance to found a proprietary estoppel claim
  2. 2 Whether the claimant relied on such assurance to his detriment
  3. 3 Whether it would be unconscionable for the defendants to resile from the assurance

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant established, on the evidence, that his father made sufficiently clear assurances over many years that he would inherit a substantial share of Tump Farm, that he reasonably relied on these assurances to his significant detriment by devoting his working life to the farm for modest reward, and that it would be unconscionable for the parents to resile from those assurances. The appropriate remedy is a lump sum reflecting 50% of the value of the farming business and 40% of the value of the land and buildings, both after tax, to achieve a clean break.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • The defendants shall pay the claimant a lump sum reflecting 50% after tax of the value of the dairy farming business and 40% after tax of the value of the freehold land and buildings at Tump Farm, with further directions for valuation and tax treatment.
  • No order on the counterclaim for occupation rent of Granary Cottage.