Breaking up the farm: seeking protection in the face of failed promises

Armstrong v Armstrong¹ is a recent example of how a father's broken promises can lead to his son bringing a successful proprietary estoppel claim against his estate. 

Alan and Margaret Armstrong purchased two farms during their marriage, one of them being the North Cowton farm in North Yorkshire.  Their first child David had decided not to work on North Cowton due to his father's 'difficult and controlling' nature.  Their second son, Richard, however, moved to North Cowton when he was 23, overseeing the farming operations for over 30 years.  Richard married and his wife and sons all lived on the farm.   Alan and Margaret's third and youngest son, Simon, worked on the second farm, Allerton Grange.

There had been tensions in the relationship between Simon and Richard for many years, but when Richard's son, Thomas, began working at North Cowton, further difficulties arose.  These led to Richard making a police report against Simon in 2013 and an altercation between Alan and another of Richard's sons, Thomas, on New Year's Eve.  The farming business was also having financial difficulties and Richard was adamant that these were being caused by Simon at Allerton Grange.  Alan, however, was convinced Richard was running the business into the ground.

The finances of North Cowton and Allerton Grange were split in 2017 to uncover why the farming business was facing financial difficulties.  Richard assumed responsibility for debts of around £500,000 related to North Cowton farm.  He was subsequently to say that he did so in reliance on his parents' promises that he would inherit the farm.

Margaret passed away in 2018 leaving her residuary estate to be held on discretionary trust for Simon and Richard. Alan, David, Richard and Simon executed a deed of variation in 2019, though, to vary Margaret's will, providing instead that the residuary estate was to pass to Alan.  Richard signed the deed of variation agreeing to this after his father had given him an 'encouraging look or nod', which he took to mean he would 'receive his inheritance from his mother when his father died and that his father would leave North Cowton to him'.

Richard had thus lived and worked on the farm for decades, believing he would inherit North Cowton.

In 2020, Alan executed a new will which cut Richard out and left North Cowton to Simon's son, George.  The judge noted the Simon 'was intimately involved in discussions…as regards Alan's new will'.

Alan died in October 2020.  

Richard brought a claim against the estate pursuant to the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, claiming he had acted on his parents' promises that he would inherit North Cowton to his detriment.  In the alternative, Richard sought reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

One of the key questions before the court was whether, but for the promises his father had made to him, Richard would have done what he did?

The court upheld Richard's claim, finding that Alan and Margaret had made clear, unambiguous, binding and irrevocable promises that he would inherit North Cowton.  These promises were made over decades and Richard reasonably relied on the promises he was going to inherit the farm.  The court found Alan had acted unconscionably by reneging on those promises.  The court also found that Alan's will had failed to make reasonable financial provision for Richard, who was financially dependent on his parents.

A further hearing will determine what the appropriate remedy is (if the parties do not reach agreement).