Just one look: High Court finds ‘encouraging look’ was part of assurances given in proprietary estoppel claim
“Just one look, that’s all it took” sang Doris Troy in 1963. There were echoes of those lyrics in the judgment of Mr Andrew Sutcliffe KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Business and Property Courts in Leeds in the case of Armstrong v Armstrong [2024] EWHC 2989 (Ch).
The Claimant, the son of a farmer, brought a claim in proprietary estoppel against his late father’s estate.
Judgment was handed down on liability in favour of the Claimant and is available here: [2024] EWHC 2989 (Ch).
The Claimant relied upon a number of assurances given by his mother and father over many years. Perhaps uniquely, he also relied upon an encouraging look given by his father during a family meeting.
The Claimant’s mother pre-deceased his father. Under his mother’s will, the Claimant was to receive about half her estate. At his father’s behest, he and other members of his family executed a deed of variation, which ensured that his father received the whole of his mother’s estate.
At the meeting concerning the deed of variation, the Claimant hesitated before executing the deed. The probate solicitor asked him “what’s the matter, don’t you trust your father?” Whereupon (the Claimant alleged) the father gave an encouraging look. The Claimant decided that he did trust his father and executed the deed.
The Claimant’s trust turned out to be misplaced. Within less than a year, his father had executed a will disinheriting the Claimant completely. If the Claimant had not signed the deed of variation, he would have retained half his mother’s assets, worth c. £1.5m
The Court accepted the Claimant’s evidence that the encouraging look had been given. The Claimant’s evidence was assisted by the evidence of one of his brothers (who was, in fact, called by the Defendants), who admitted that he recalled the probate solicitor querying whether the Claimant trusted his father.
The Court held that the encouraging look formed part of the promises given over many years that the Claimant would inherit one of his parents’ two farms. By giving away his share of his mother’s estate (among other things) the Claimant had acted substantially to his detriment.
The Claimant was held to have a good claim in proprietary estoppel and under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
The remedy hearing is to be listed on a date after 20 January 2025.
