CONTESTING A WILL WITH WILLCLAIM SOLICITORS NO WIN NO FEE SPECIALISTS – TESTING FOR DETRIMENT IN PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL CLAIMS
Will claim Solicitors, specialist no win no fee will dispute and will contest Solicitors, consider what might constitute sufficient detriment in Will dispute and Will contest claims and how the extent of detriment discovered might affect the remedy
How detriment is relevant in Will dispute and Will contest claims
Detriment is an essential element in so-called “Proprietary Estoppel” claims – these are in general claims for a share of a property (typically a farm) where a promise was made (and often repeated) for (usually) a near relative to inherit it and in consequence that relative works for many years for little or no money in the expectation that he or she will. In these circumstances the Court may step in to enforce the promise but only where certain elements are established:
- that a sufficiently clear and unequivocal representation or promise was made or assurance given in relation to particular property;
- the promise was relied upon;
- detriment was suffered as a result of this reliance.
In this instance we will be considering these matters by reference to the case of Hughes v Pritchard which threw up a number claims, some of which we have commented on before:
Hughes v Pritchard – back to basics in Will dispute and Will contest claims where the primary issue is testamentary capacity – Will Claim Solicitors
Detrimental reliance then is essential
In Hughes v Pritchard [2023] EWHC 1382 (Ch) His Honour Judge Keyser KC provides a detailed analysis of the law of detriment.
Hughes v Pritchard & Ors [2023] EWHC 1382 (Ch) (12 June 2023)
Whilst it need not consist of the expenditure of money or other quantifiable financial detriment, it must be “something substantial”.
“10. In Gillett v Holt, Robert Walker LJ said at 233: “The overwhelming weight of authority shows that detriment is required. But the authorities also show that it is not a narrow or technical concept. The detriment need not consist of the expenditure of money or other quantifiable financial detriment, so long as it is something substantial. The requirement must be approached as part of a broad inquiry as to whether repudiation of an assurance is or is not unconscionable in all the circumstances”
HHJ Keyser was not convinced that the applicant had suffered substantial detriment in the circumstances of this claim – in fact there appears to have been evidence the arrangements were to his advantage [paragraph 84]:
“However, Elfed’s considerable success, professional and financial, as a farmer was due not only to his own effort, commitment and ability but also to the assistance from his father: initially in the gift of a farmhouse and some land of his own, and over many years by way of the ability to use his father’s existing farm rent-free, as well as the Deceased’s willingness to facilitate the expansion into Rhosbeirio that was not required for his own business. It is neither necessary nor possible to make a precise arithmetical calculation of the balance of benefit. Taking matters in the round, and bearing in mind the work and money he expended to the Deceased’s as well as his own advantage, I do not think that Elfed’s farming operations resulted in a detriment to him. The financial statements and the record of the assets he and Gwen built up themselves suggest the contrary”
Given the Courts by means of their decisions in “Proprietary Estoppel” claims are giving effect to incomplete agreements, there is plainly a reluctance to go under a “substantial” level of detriment or there must be a risk of creating chaos by enforcing the ordinary dealings of people where enforceable arrangements were not really meant to happen or would be undesirable. If the level of detriment is seen to drop too far below the “substantial”, it could open up a pandora’s box of claims and possibly encourage criminality.
In a recent case which the writer is involved in (and which we were unable to resolve in a recent mediation), the level of detriment claimed (in relation to an alleged promise to bequeath a £600,000.00 property) was extremely low, amounting to:
- care and support to the person promising to bequeath the property of between about 10 months to a year and four months; and/or
- in reliance on the promise, removal from the local authority housing list.
There are other important features to this case such as the fact that the person relying on the promise was a relatively young man (under the age of 30), he hadn’t worked for many years, his mother appeared to be providing the bulk of the care and support and that he had only a remote prospect of being provided with local authority housing. It was also curious he would remove himself from the housing list at all in the expectation of inheriting when the person promising could easily have been expected to live another 20 years.
How might detriment affect the remedy
Very briefly, this was a key element in the Supreme Court decision in Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27:
Guest and another (Appellants) v Guest (Respondent)
In essence, whilst if would appear the Court was minded to reject the theory that the aim of the remedy for Proprietary Estoppel would be to compensate for the detriment proven to have been suffered (rather than completely enforce the promise), it did confirm that where the enforcement of the promise would result in an award out of all proportion to the detriment “then the Court may be constrained to limit the extent of the remedy” [paragraph 76].
In the same paragraph, the Court (on point with our own recent case – as above) suggested:
“An example of a remedy out of all proportion to the detriment would be the full enforcement of a promise by an elderly lady to leave her carer a particular piece of jewellery if she stayed on at very low wages, which turned out on valuation by her executors to be a Faberge worth millions. Another would be a promise to leave a generous inheritance if the promisee cared for the promisor for the rest of her life, but where she unexpectedly died two months later”
If you consider any of these facts and matters are of interest, are likely to apply to you, or you would like to ask us for more information about our no win no fee arrangement, or you simply want us to assess your claim, then please do not hesitate to contact us for a confidential no strings chat and/or visit us at www.willclaim.com.
We provide details about our no win no fee arrangements at https://www.willclaim.com/no-win-no-fee/.