The High Court has rejected a son’s claim that he was entitled to inherit his father’s farm based on promises his father had made during his lifetime. The son’s claim that his father’s last two wills were invalid was also rejected.
The father had died in 2018, at the age of 81, leaving a considerable estate including a farm that had been used for successful car boot sales. After remarrying in 2016, he had made two new wills which made his wife a major beneficiary of his estate and made no provision for his son. The son brought a claim under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, arguing that his father had promised him the farm. He also argued that the 2016 wills were invalid because his father had lacked capacity and had not known or approved their contents.
Ruling on the proprietary estoppel claim, the Court accepted the son’s evidence that, in or around 1995, the father had made promises to him in respect of the farm. Those promises had acted as an inducement to him to continue to work on the farm and not to pursue other careers, and he had reasonably relied on them. However, he had ceased to rely on them in 2003 when he had been told that they were no longer operative. While he had suffered detriments from continuing to work on the farm, he had also received a number of benefits, including payments of £1,000 a month and 50 per cent of the profits from the car boot sales. The Court concluded that he had not suffered a net detriment. The proprietary estoppel claim therefore failed.
Turning to the question of the 2016 wills’ validity, the Court noted that the father had been suffering from dementia when they were made. However, his estate was complex as he had had a number of real estate interests and had also had a large number of children, and the wills had dealt with those interests in a number of ways. In the Court’s judgment, he had appreciated the nature of the transactions being effected, and had understood the extent of the property he was disposing of and the claims he ought to give effect to. His decision not to provide for his son was not the product of any disorder of mind. The Court concluded that he had had capacity to make the wills. Nor were they invalid for a lack of knowledge and approval.
