Guest and another (Appellant) v Guest (Respondent)

UKSC 2020/0107
On appeal from: [2020] EWCA Civ 387
Tump Farm is a working dairy farm which has been farmed by the Guest family since 1938. The first appellant, David is married to the second appellant, Josephine. The respondent, Andrew is their eldest son. Andrew left school in 1982, aged 16 and worked full time at the farm for 33 years until 2015.
Relations between Andrew and his parents deteriorated. In 2014, David and Josephine made wills excluding any entitlement for Andrew. In 2015, David and Josephine offered Andrew terms for carrying on farming Tump Farm under a farming business tenancy. Andrew rejected those terms on grounds of affordability and left the farm that year.
In 2017, Andrew started legal proceedings seeking a declaration of entitlement to a beneficial interest in Tump Farm under the principles of proprietary estoppel. The judge at first instance ruled in his favour finding that an assurance was made to Andrew over many years that he would inherit a substantial share of the farm which he had relied on, working hard on the farm for little financial reward. He ordered that David and Josephine make a lump sum payment to Andrew of 50% of the market value of the farming business and 40% of the market value of Tump Farm. The consequence of that order was that Tump Farm would have to be sold in order to realise the lump sum payable to Andrew. David and Josephine appealed to the Court of Appeal where their appeal was dismissed.
The issues are:
The appeal raises questions about the proper approach to granting relief under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. The Supreme Court is asked to decide:
(1) Whether a successful claimant’s expectation, in this case of inheritance of a family farm, was an appropriate starting point when considering a remedy; and (2) Whether the remedy granted, namely payment of a lump sum which would in effect result in the sale of the farm, went beyond what was necessary in the circumstances.
Lord Briggs, with whom Lady Arden and Lady Rose agree, allows the appeal in part and substitutes alternate remedies of either putting the farm into trust in favour of their children or paying compensation to Andrew now but with a reduction properly to reflect his earlier-than-anticipated receipt. The parents are to be entitled to choose between these options. Lord Leggatt, with whom Lord Stephens agrees, would also have allowed the appeal but on substantially different grounds and would have substituted a different remedy.
More information is available on our website. UKSC 2020/0107