Whenever we read about estoppel claims, it is common for farms to be involved. So, what is estoppel? The elements needed to be successful in arguing estoppel can be broken down into the following questions:
- was a clear, and unambiguous, promise made by X to Y? For example, “if you continue helping me farm this land, when I die, I will give it to you”;
- if there was a promise made, did Y rely on the promise? This means did Y take the promise seriously and continue working on the farm only because they believed X would fulfil their end of the promise;
- in Y’s reliance on X’s promise, did Y act to their detriment? This can mean many things, the most common being providing free, or underpaid, work. It can also mean missing career opportunities; and
- would it be unconscionable, and unreasonable, to renege on the promise?
In the recent case of Armstrong v Armstrong, the Claimant, Richard, was the second son in a farming family. He was given assurances by his parents that part of their farm would pass to him upon their deaths. Richard’s mother pre-deceased his father, and on his father's death, he discovered that his father had left the farm to Richard’s nephew, and made no provision for him. The assurances made by his parents meant that Richard abandoned a university education, where he would have studied engineering. Instead, he studied agriculture at Askham Bryan Agricultural College. In reliance on the promises, Richard continued to work and live on the farm with his family. Richard also took on responsibility for the debts of the farm. These were not his personal debts, but ones incurred by the farming business.
The court held that there were promises made to Richard of sufficient clarity and he demonstrated that had the promises not been made, he would have followed an alternative career, and found alternative accommodation for himself and his family. It was unconscionable for Richard’s parents to renege on their promises. It concluded that Richard’s claim for estoppel was successful. However, a further hearing would have to be listed to determine what Richard would be awarded. This can in itself be difficult to assess and it will need to be established whether the appropriate remedy for Richard is to fulfil the promise made by his parents and transfer the farm to him, or whether a cash settlement would suffice.-
Whilst this case is about farmland, estoppel is not limited to promises relating to farming. It can relate to any promise, so long as all of the above elements can be clearly shown.
If you have any questions or issues relating to estoppel, please don't hesitate to get in touch.