This article examines the significance of the recent decision of the Court of Appeal involving brothers, Richard and Adrian Winter, who brought a successful claim of proprietary estoppel against their other brother, Philip Winter. The brothers' claim was premised on a challenge to their father's Will on the basis that their mother and father made mutual wills. They also pleaded that a constructive trust applied and on grounds of contractual estoppel, however, the focus of this article is proprietary estoppel.
The dispute arose over their late father's estate, which included a strawberry farming business in Somerset. All three brothers devoted their lives to working on the farm from a very early age, investing considerable time into the business, with little financial reward for many years. It was only after a restructuring in 2014 that they began to receive substantial salaries and dividends.
Initially, the brothers were given equal shares in the business, and it was their father's intention, as reflected in his Will, that they would inherit his estate equally. However, following the death of their mother in 2001 and the reorganisation of the business, a new Will was made in 2015, revoking the previous one and leaving the entire estate to Philip.
Following their father's death in 2017, Richard and Adrian brought a proprietary estoppel claim to recover the shares they felt they were entitled to. The High Court found in their favour, recognising that the brothers had relied on their father's assurances, to their detriment, and were thus entitled to a share of the business. Philip appealed the decision arguing that the claimants had not demonstrated sufficient detriment, as they had not foregone opportunities that would have placed them in a better position. The appeal was dismissed with the court finding that Mr Justice Zacaroli had appropriately considered the financial benefits against any detriment suffered by the claimants.
As set out in our briefing on the case of Guest v Guest, proprietary estoppel arises where a person (the promisor) gives an assurance to another (the promisee) that they will be granted an interest in a property or land. The promisee must have relied on the assurance to their detriment, and the promisor must have failed to fulfil the promise.
When assessing proprietary estoppel claims, the court considers the overall disadvantage or harm (the "net detriment") suffered by the claimant due to their reliance on a promise or assurance. The court must consider whether the claimant has experienced substantial detriment, which extends beyond financial loss. The overall detriment is then weighed against any countervailing benefits received by the claimant. If the detriment outweighs the benefits, proprietary estoppel is likely to be established.
Cases such as Gillett v Holt, Suggitt v Suggitt, Habberfield v Habberfield and Spencer v Spencer have all established the principle that where one devotes their life to something, the court can recognise detriment even if the claimant has not shown that a different path would have been more beneficial. In this case, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that, although alternative careers might not have made them wealthier, Richard and Adrian had suffered unquantifiable detriment by committing their lives to the family business at the expense of other pursuits. This was reflected in Lord Justice Newey's judgment:
"Where…a claimant has made a life-changing choice and over many years undertaken work in reliance on an assurance, the Court will probably be prepared to treat loss of opportunity to lead a different life as itself detrimental without requiring the claimant to prove, or itself trying to determine, quite what the claimant would have done and with what consequences…" (Para 52 of [2024] EWCA Civ 699).
This case is significant as it marks a development in the law of proprietary estoppel building on recent cases such as Mate v Mate & others and Gladstone White & others, which were discussed in our recent case law update.
The decision confirms that when an individual has made a life-changing decision and has undertaken substantial work based on an assurance, the mere loss of opportunity to pursue a different life path is itself sufficient detriment. Perhaps more importantly, Winter v Winter is authority for the principle that the claimant is not required to demonstrate what alternative decisions they could have made or the implications of that decision.
This is significant because it alleviates the challenging burden of proving what could have been if one had not relied on the detriment, thereby simplifying the process of establishing detriment. It will remain to be seen whether this will increase the likelihood of success in proprietary estoppel claims, however, there is no doubt that this will come as a welcome development to farming families, in particular, who may not have planned for future succession and may never have had the opportunity to pursue alternative careers and therefore, lack the evidence to demonstrate that a different path would have been more beneficial to them.