Creasey & Anor v Sole & Ors

Creasey & Anor v Sole & Ors

Michael does not qualify under clause 5(b)(i) of the father's will; no agricultural tenancy arose under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986; proprietary estoppel claim fails for lack of clear assurance, reasonable reliance, and substantial detriment; Michael has no right to occupy land under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 except arguably the mother's half share in Michael's Land, but this does not confer a right to occupy the physical land; Michael is a trespasser from 1 October 2007 and must pay damages; executors to specify boundaries and interests per the mother's will; Michael not obliged to account for Single Payment Scheme payments.

Parties
Claimant: Alfred George Creasey; Claimant: Anthony Peter Holmes; Defendant: June Sole; Defendant: Pamela Hackett; Defendant: George Jenkins; Defendant: Ronald Jenkins; Defendant: Richard Jenkins; Defendant: Michael Jenkins
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Probate Dispute / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claims for exclusive inheritance, agricultural tenancy, proprietary estoppel, and occupation rights dismissed; distribution of land and assets per the wills; Michael ordered to deliver up possession and pay damages for trespass.
Legal Topics
Will Interpretation, Proprietary Estoppel, Agricultural Tenancy, Trusts of Land, Administration of Estates
Succession Property Equity Will Interpretation Proprietary Estoppel Agricultural Tenancy Trusts of Land Administration of Estates

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alfred George Creasey

Claimant

Anthony Peter Holmes

Claimant

June Sole

Defendant

Pamela Hackett

Defendant

George Jenkins

Defendant

Ronald Jenkins

Defendant

Richard Jenkins

Defendant

Michael Jenkins

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Dispute / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Interpretation of the father's and mother's wills regarding land distribution
  2. 2 Whether Michael qualifies under clause 5(b)(i) of the father's will
  3. 3 Existence of agricultural tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986

Ratio Decidendi

Michael does not qualify under clause 5(b)(i) of the father's will; no agricultural tenancy arose under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986; proprietary estoppel claim fails for lack of clear assurance, reasonable reliance, and substantial detriment; Michael has no right to occupy land under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 except arguably the mother's half share in Michael's Land, but this does not confer a right to occupy the physical land; Michael is a trespasser from 1 October 2007 and must pay damages; executors to specify boundaries and interests per the mother's will; Michael not obliged to account for Single Payment Scheme payments.

Court Disposition

Claims for exclusive inheritance, agricultural tenancy, proprietary estoppel, and occupation rights dismissed; distribution of land and assets per the wills; Michael ordered to deliver up possession and pay damages for trespass.

Orders

  • Executors to specify boundaries and interests per mother's will.
  • Order for possession against Michael of all land occupied.