Family farm inheritance disputes: Proprietary estoppel and Inheritance Act claims

Disputes over family farms are often some of the most emotionally charged contentious probate cases. These cases frequently arise from the conflict between longstanding, informal assurances and the strict legal rules relating to wills and estates.

Harrowells were involved in a recent case which illustrates just how complex these disputes can become, and how carefully the courts will examine claims that someone should receive property based on promises made to them.

In the recent case of Hodgson v Hodgson & Hodgson, Simon Black, Head of Litigation & Dispute Resolution, assisted an 87-year-old widow in defending a highly sensitive claim brought by her daughter concerning a family farm.

The daughter had worked on the farm for much of her life. She argued that she had been promised that she would inherit a substantial part of the farm and that, relying on that assurance, she had shaped her entire working and personal life around it. On that basis, she claimed that she should receive what she was promised following the death of her father on the basis of proprietary estoppel. In the alternative, she advanced a claim pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“the Inheritance Act”) on the basis that her father’s will did not provide her with reasonable financial provision. This was despite having lived on, and been maintained by the farm, throughout her life.

The widow, our client, accepted that discussions had taken place over the years and that promises had been made in general terms. She however disputed her daughter’s claims.

The case proceeded to a five-day trial and a number of complex and technical issues were considered, including:

• whether parts of the farm were held as joint tenants or tenants in common;
• whether the execution of mirror wills could have the effect of severing a joint tenancy; and
• how the deceased husband’s will should properly be interpreted and whether extrinsic evidence could be considered when interpreting it.

These issues needed to be determined before the proprietary estoppel and Inheritance Act claims could be decided.

The court ultimately found in favour of our client on all key issues.

While it was accepted that some form of assurance had been made during the daughter’s lifetime, the court carefully analysed the context in which those statements were made. Importantly, it was found that any expectation of inheritance related to a situation where both parents had died, rather than an entitlement arising on the first death.

Even if the assurances had been relied upon, the court concluded that the overall balance of detriment and benefit did not support the daughter’s claim. The evidence showed that her life choices, including her continued work on the farm, would likely have been made in the same way regardless of any alleged promises. The claim therefore failed for lack of causal detrimental reliance.

The Inheritance Act claim similarly failed. The court held that, in all the circumstances, the provision made (or not made) under the estate did not amount to unreasonable financial provision for the purposes of the Inheritance Act. The daughter acknowledged during the trial that she was in a better financial position at the time of the trial than she had been prior to her father’s death.

The case demonstrates that even long-standing family arrangements and repeated assurances will not automatically translate into enforceable rights. The evidential threshold for proprietary estoppel remains carefully policed, and claims under the Inheritance Act continue to be highly fact sensitive, especially in relation to adult children.

Behind the straightforward legal outcome however lay a distressing family conflict which took great emotional toll: a daughter taking legal action against her mother in her late 80s over a farm they had shared for decades.

Cases like this highlight the importance of careful estate planning, particularly where agricultural or family business assets are involved. Issues such as informal promises, lifetime contributions to a family enterprise, and expectations around succession can escalate into litigation if not carefully planned.

Harrowells’ contentious probate team regularly advises on disputes involving proprietary estoppel, Inheritance Act claims, and complex estate structures, particularly where farms and family businesses are concerned. These cases often require a combination of technical expertise and a sensitive understanding of the family context in which they arise.