Brother wins battle in £10m strawberry farm case
The son of a fruit farmer who abandoned his dream of becoming a Royal Marine to work in the family strawberry business has won a court battle against his brother over their father’s £10m business.
Richard Winter gave up his dream of military stardom to grow strawberries after his father promised that he would split his share in the business equally between him and his two brothers, Philip and Adrian. However, upon his father’s death, he found that his father had changed his Will to leave the entire estate to Philip – the alleged result of a family feud.
The legal principle of ‘proprietary estoppel’
In the court case that followed, Richard and Adrian first argued that the Will was not valid, but this argument was thrown out by the court due to a lack of evidence.
Richard then argued that he had given up a promising military career based solely on his father’s promise, with his legal team claiming he had suffered a “detrimental loss of opportunity to lead a different life”. This argument relied on a legal remedy called ‘proprietary estoppel’, which can sometimes be employed where:
- A promise has been made to an individual that they will one day own part or all of a property/family business
- The individual relies on this promise to his or her detriment.
The counter-argument
Philip defended his case by arguing that the disinherited brothers did not suffer detriment as the family business had made them both millionaires. He further claimed that his two brothers could not prove that they would have done better for themselves had they taken a different path in life.
However, Mr Justice Zacaroli found in favour of Richard and Adrian, ruling that the criteria for proprietary estoppel had been met and that their father’s share in the business should – as promised – be distributed equally between the three brothers.
The appeal
Philip appealed against the decision, again arguing that his brothers had not suffered financial detriment as a result of their decision to work on the family farm.
However, Lord Justice Newey, who presided over the appeal, said: “To succeed in a proprietary estoppel claim, a claimant needs to show sufficiently substantial net detriment of any kind. Where, however, a claimant has made a life-changing choice and over many years undertaken work in reliance of that assurance, the Court will probably be prepared to treat loss of opportunity to lead a different life as itself detrimental without requiring the claimant to provide, or itself trying to determine, quite what the claimant would have done and with what consequences…”
In other words, the fact that the brothers had given up other hopes and dreams in the belief that they would one day own a share of the family farm was detrimental in and of itself, irrespective of the specific financial value of that detriment.
Preventing a claim of proprietary estoppel
The whole purpose of a Will is to clarify your wishes for what you want to happen to your estate after your death.
However, as this case has shown, your Will may not be relied upon if you have previously made promises that contradict your current wishes, as doing so can give rise to a proprietary estoppel claim. Here are some steps you can take in order to prevent disputes and hostility amongst your beneficiaries:
- Don’t make promises you can’t – or won’t – keep
- Where you do have verbal discussions with potential beneficiaries regarding the property, retain written evidence as to what was discussed
- Ensure your Will explicitly addresses your intentions regarding succession and include a Letter of Wishes explaining the rationale behind your decisions.
At Attwaters Jameson Hill, we can support you in drafting a Will that clearly identifies your plans for succession and will always work to identify and rectify potential issues that could give rise to a claim. Please do give our specialist Wills & Probate team a call on 0330 221 8855 to set up an appointment or email enquiries@attwaters.co.uk with details of your matter.
