Davies v Davies & Ors

Davies v Davies & Ors

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the claimant's father made clear and unambiguous promises, assented to by his mother, that the farm would be his if he worked it, and that the claimant relied on these promises to his detriment. The detriment suffered was substantial and not outweighed by countervailing benefits. It would be unconscionable to allow the will provisions to stand. The equity arising from proprietary estoppel entitles the claimant to the whole beneficial interest in the farm, but not the bungalow, which would be disproportionate.

Parties
Claimant: Evan James Lloyd Davies; Defendant: David John Lloyd Davies; Defendant: Thomas Peter Lloyd Davies; Defendant: Ellen Davies
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Beneficial Ownership, Family Property Disputes
Equity Property Law Proprietary Estoppel Beneficial Ownership Family Property Disputes

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evan James Lloyd Davies

Claimant

David John Lloyd Davies

Defendant

Thomas Peter Lloyd Davies

Defendant

Ellen Davies

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proprietary estoppel entitles the claimant to the beneficial interest in the farm to the exclusion of the will provisions
  2. 2 Whether oral promises and conduct by the deceased and his wife created an equity in favour of the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the detriment suffered by the claimant justifies granting the whole beneficial interest in the farm

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the claimant's father made clear and unambiguous promises, assented to by his mother, that the farm would be his if he worked it, and that the claimant relied on these promises to his detriment. The detriment suffered was substantial and not outweighed by countervailing benefits. It would be unconscionable to allow the will provisions to stand. The equity arising from proprietary estoppel entitles the claimant to the whole beneficial interest in the farm, but not the bungalow, which would be disproportionate.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part

Orders

  • The claimant is entitled to the whole beneficial interest in the farm, excluding the bungalow, by proprietary estoppel.
  • The claimant shall continue making monthly payments to his mother for her life.