Horsford v Horsford

Horsford v Horsford

Peter did not acquire an equity by proprietary estoppel as there was no clear and irrevocable assurance, nor significant detriment; any possible equity was extinguished by the 2012 Partnership Agreement, which comprehensively governs the parties' rights and obligations. Marian is entitled to payment for her share as calculated under the agreement, including marriage value and the apportionment of the wind farm value, and Peter must reimburse half the valuation fees.

Parties
Claimant: Dorothy Marian Horsford; Defendant: Peter William Davis Horsford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Property/partnership / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Partnership Dissolution, Contractual Estoppel, Land Valuation, Retirement of Partner
Equity Property Law Partnership Law Proprietary Estoppel Partnership Dissolution Contractual Estoppel Land Valuation Retirement of Partner

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 36 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dorothy Marian Horsford

Claimant

Peter William Davis Horsford

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property/partnership / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Peter acquired an equity by way of proprietary estoppel preventing Marian from enforcing her rights under the Partnership Agreement
  2. 2 Whether any such equity was extinguished or barred by the 2012 Partnership Agreement and/or laches
  3. 3 Calculation of sums payable to Marian on purchase of her share under the 2012 Partnership Agreement, including land valuation and apportionment of wind farm value

Ratio Decidendi

Peter did not acquire an equity by proprietary estoppel as there was no clear and irrevocable assurance, nor significant detriment; any possible equity was extinguished by the 2012 Partnership Agreement, which comprehensively governs the parties' rights and obligations. Marian is entitled to payment for her share as calculated under the agreement, including marriage value and the apportionment of the wind farm value, and Peter must reimburse half the valuation fees.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for Marian for the price of her share in the partnership as calculated under the 2012 Partnership Agreement, including marriage value and wind farm apportionment
  • Peter to reimburse Marian for half of Mr Zeid’s valuation fees