Uglow v Uglow & Ors
The assurance given by the testator was implicitly conditional on the success of the partnership and not irrevocable whatever happened. The arrangements made in 1984, granting Richard a protected tenancy of most of the land, satisfied any equity arising from the assurance. It was not unconscionable for the testator to leave Treludick to Peter in his will.
- Parties
- Appellant: Richard Uglow; Respondent: Peter Uglow & Ors
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 27 July 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Proprietary Estoppel, Inheritance Dispute, Tenancy, Oral Assurance, Unconscionable Conduct
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Richard Uglow
Appellant
Peter Uglow & Ors
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether proprietary estoppel entitled Richard Uglow to the freehold of Treludick farm despite the will naming Peter Uglow as beneficiary
- 2 Whether the oral assurance by the testator created an irrevocable expectation
- 3 Whether the detriment suffered by Richard Uglow justified intervention by equity
Ratio Decidendi
The assurance given by the testator was implicitly conditional on the success of the partnership and not irrevocable whatever happened. The arrangements made in 1984, granting Richard a protected tenancy of most of the land, satisfied any equity arising from the assurance. It was not unconscionable for the testator to leave Treludick to Peter in his will.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs of the appeal to be determined by the District Judge
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment