The Court of Appeal’s decision in Winter v Winter [2024] EWCA Civ 699 provides crucial guidance on proprietary estoppel claims in farming families, confirming that “loss of opportunity to lead a different life” constitutes sufficient detriment even without proving specific alternative opportunities foregone.

This important judgment reinforces the protection available to family members who devote their working lives to family farms based on promises of future inheritance.

The Somerset Strawberry Farm Dispute

The case centred on a family strawberry farm in Somerset where three brothers had devoted their entire working lives to the family business. Their parents had repeatedly assured them throughout their lives that the farm and business would be divided equally among them upon their parents’ deaths.

Based on these assurances, the brothers had worked on the farm from a young age for minimal wages, foregone other career opportunities, made life decisions based on their expected inheritance, and invested their labour and expertise in building the business.

However, family relationships deteriorated, leading to a dispute about whether the brothers had valid proprietary estoppel claims against their parents’ estate.

The High Court’s Initial Decision

At first instance, the High Court found in favour of the three brothers, holding that they had established valid proprietary estoppel claims. The judge concluded that clear promises had been made about equal inheritance, the brothers had relied on these promises in conducting their lives, they had suffered detriment by foregoing other opportunities, and it would be unconscionable to deny them their expected shares.

The parents appealed, arguing that the brothers had failed to prove specific alternative opportunities they had foregone.

Lord Justice Newey’s Important Clarification

In upholding the High Court’s decision, Lord Justice Newey provided crucial clarification on the nature of detriment in proprietary estoppel cases. He confirmed that “loss of opportunity to lead a different life” is sufficient detriment.

The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that claimants must prove specific alternative opportunities they would have pursued. Instead, the court recognised that devoting one’s working life to a family business based on inheritance promises inherently involves giving up the chance to pursue other paths.

This principle is particularly important in farming cases where family members often start working on the farm from a young age, making it impossible to identify specific alternative careers they might have pursued.

Building on Established Precedents

Winter v Winter builds on a line of established farming precedents. In Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210, the Court of Appeal recognised that working for low wages in expectation of future benefits could constitute detriment. Suggitt v Suggitt [2012] EWCA Civ 1140 established that promises about inheritance can give rise to proprietary estoppel even if not precisely defined.

The Winter decision reinforces these principles while providing additional clarity on the detriment requirement.

The Elements of Proprietary Estoppel

Winter v Winter helpfully illustrates all the essential elements of a proprietary estoppel claim. First, there must be a representation or assurance—clear promises about future inheritance. Second, there must be reliance—life decisions made based on those promises. Third, there must be detriment—giving up other life opportunities. Finally, it must be unconscionable to go back on the promises.

The case demonstrates how these elements often overlap and reinforce each other in family farming contexts.

Practical Implications for Farming Families

The decision has significant implications for farming families across England and Wales. Farm owners should be cautious about making promises regarding inheritance, document any agreements or understandings clearly, consider formalising arrangements through partnership agreements, and ensure wills reflect any promises made to family members.

Family members working on farms should keep records of promises made about future inheritance, document their contributions to the farm business, consider seeking legal advice to formalise arrangements, and be aware that verbal promises can create enforceable rights.

The “Clean Break” Recommendation

Significantly, the Court of Appeal endorsed the trial judge’s recommendation for a “clean break” between family members. This recognises that once family relationships have broken down to the point of litigation, it may be impractical to expect continued joint ownership or operation of the farm.

This approach allows for clear division of assets, certainty for all parties, the ability to move forward independently, and avoidance of future disputes.

Comparison with Other Recent Cases

Winter v Winter can be compared with other recent farming estoppel cases. In Armstrong v Armstrong [2024] EWHC 2989 (Ch), Richard Armstrong successfully claimed North Cowton Farm after working there for 34 years based on his father’s promises. The court similarly recognised the life-changing nature of such commitments.

These cases demonstrate a consistent judicial approach to protecting family members who structure their lives around inheritance promises.

Alternative Claims: Proprietary Estoppel and the 1975 Act

Winter v Winter also illustrates how proprietary estoppel claims often proceed alongside claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. While the two causes of action are distinct, they can provide alternative routes to relief where family members have been inadequately provided for.

Proprietary estoppel may be preferable where clear promises were made, the claimant is not eligible under the 1975 Act, or the remedy sought is specific property rather than financial provision.

Key Lessons for Legal Practitioners

For solicitors advising farming families, Winter v Winter emphasises several important points. Even informal family understandings should be properly documented. Wills should be regularly reviewed to ensure they reflect any promises made to family members. Sometimes transferring assets during lifetime can avoid disputes. Formal business structures through partnership agreements can provide clarity and protection.

The Broader Context

Winter v Winter reflects broader challenges facing farming families. Increasing land values make inheritance more contentious. Changing family structures and expectations create new tensions. There’s often conflict between keeping farms intact and treating children equally. Tax considerations significantly affect succession planning.

The decision provides important protection for family members who commit their lives to family farms while highlighting the need for proper succession planning.

Conclusion

Winter v Winter represents a significant victory for farming family members who structure their lives around inheritance promises. By confirming that giving up the opportunity to lead a different life constitutes sufficient detriment, the Court of Appeal has provided important protection for those who devote themselves to family businesses.

The decision serves as both a warning to farm owners about the consequences of informal promises and reassurance to family members that their contributions and sacrifices will be recognised by the courts. Most importantly, it emphasises the need for clear communication and proper legal documentation in family farming arrangements.

If you are involved in a farming family dispute or need advice on succession planning for agricultural assets, our specialist contentious probate and agricultural law team can provide expert guidance. We offer free initial consultations to assess your situation. Call us on 0161 515 7329 or visit https://www.fiftysixlaw.co.uk/contact/ to leave your details and arrange a consultation.