PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL VS INHERITANCE ACT CLAIMS: WHICH IS STRONGER?
If you have been told you may have either a proprietary estoppel claim or an Inheritance Act claim, it is important to understand the difference between them.
Although both are used in inheritance disputes, they address different situations and rely on different types of evidence. The strongest claim will depend on the facts of the case and what you are trying to prove.
This blog looks at how the two claims differ, when each may be stronger, and why the answer is not always straightforward.
The core difference between proprietary estoppel and Inheritance Act claims
Proprietary estoppel claims
A proprietary estoppel claim is about a promise linked to property. The person making the claim says they were led to expect something specific, such as a home, farm, land or share of a business.
A promise on its own is not enough. The claimant also has to show that they relied on it and suffered a disadvantage because of it. That might mean working for low pay, giving up other opportunities, putting money into the property, or making life choices they would not otherwise have made that have put them in a worse position.
Inheritance Act claims
An Inheritance Act claim is different. It is not about proving a promise. It is about whether someone eligible to claim has been left without reasonable financial provision under a will, or under the intestacy rules, which decide who inherits when there is no valid will.
An Inheritance Act claim usually looks at things such as:
- whether the person is eligible to claim
- their financial resources and needs
- the financial position of other beneficiaries
- the size and nature of the estate
- whether the provision made for them was reasonable
In short, proprietary estoppel looks back at what was promised and what the person did because of it. An Inheritance Act claim looks at the claimant’s circumstances after the death and whether they have been left without reasonable financial support.
The limits are different too. Inheritance Act claims are only available to certain people, such as a spouse, child or someone financially dependent on the deceased. They are also usually subject to a six-month deadline from the grant of probate, although late claims may sometimes be allowed.
Proprietary estoppel claims are not tied to the same six-month deadline, but delay can still cause problems. Documents can become harder to find, memories fade, and the estate may already have been administered and distributed.
When proprietary estoppel may be the stronger route
Farm inheritance disputes often hinge on this type of claim. A son or daughter may have worked on the farm for years, accepted low pay, turned down other work, or built their future around the belief that the farm would one day be theirs.
In Guest v Guest [2022], a son spent many years working on the family farm after being repeatedly led to believe he would inherit a substantial share of it. When the relationship broke down and that inheritance did not happen, he brought a proprietary estoppel claim.
The Supreme Court found in his favour and accepted that he had relied on those promises to his detriment. However, the court also made clear that the remedy does not always have to match the promise exactly. The award must be fair and proportionate, looking at the promise, the reliance and the disadvantage suffered.
The case shows why evidence matters. A proprietary estoppel claim is not simply about saying, “I was promised this.” The court has to look at what was said, how clearly it was said, what the person did because of it, and what would now be fair.
When an Inheritance Act claim may be the better option
The facts of Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] show how the court approaches claims based on financial provision rather than promises about inheritance.
An adult daughter had been estranged from her mother for many years and was left out of the will. The estate was left to a number of charities instead.
Her claim was not based on a promise that she would inherit. Instead, she argued that the will had failed to make reasonable financial provision for her. At the time of the claim, she had limited financial means and relied on state benefits.
The daughter was first awarded £50,000. The Court of Appeal later increased that award, but the Supreme Court restored the original amount. It did not say she had a general right to inherit from her mother’s estate. It accepted that her financial situation justified some provision, but kept the award limited because she was an adult child who had lived separately from her mother for many years.
The decision illustrates the approach the court takes in Inheritance Act claims. The focus is on factors such as financial need, the relationship with the deceased, the size of the estate and the competing claims of others.
Why the same dispute can raise more than one legal argument
A proprietary estoppel claim and an Inheritance Act claim can sometimes be considered in the same inheritance dispute.
Armstrong v Armstrong [2024] is a good example. Richard Armstrong said his parents had promised him North Cowton Farm for years. He worked there, built his life around that expectation, accepted modest pay and turned down other opportunities because he believed the farm would eventually be his.
Those facts supported a proprietary estoppel claim. His argument was that he had relied on repeated promises about the farm and suffered a disadvantage as a result.
He also brought an Inheritance Act claim. That argument was different. Rather than focusing on promises, it focused on the fact that he had been left nothing from his father’s estate and had not received reasonable financial provision.
The court upheld the proprietary estoppel claim and awarded him North Cowton Farm. That gave him substantially what he had been promised, so there was no need to make a separate award under the Inheritance Act. However, the court indicated that if the estoppel claim had failed, an alternative award under the Act would have been available.
The case shows how the same set of facts can support two different claims, each based on a different legal argument.
Speak to a solicitor about proprietary estoppel and Inheritance Act claims
If you have been left out of a will, were led to expect property, or are defending a claim about a promised inheritance, it is worth getting legal advice before deciding what to do next.
Our specialist inheritance dispute solicitors can assess the facts, explain your position, and help you decide how best to move forward.
Contact Will Claim for a free assessment.
Call Us Now – 0203 322 5103
This blog provides general information only and should not be treated as formal legal advice.