Armstrong v Armstrong [2024] EWHC 2989 (Ch)

August 14, 2025

Armstrong v Armstrong [2024] EWHC 2989 (Ch), Proprietary Estoppel and Promises of a Family Farm

Background

In Armstrong v Armstrong [2024] EWHC 2989 (Ch), the High Court considered the doctrine of proprietary estoppel in the context of a long-running family farm inheritance dispute. Proprietary estoppel arises where clear assurances about rights in property are reasonably relied upon to a party’s detriment, making it unconscionable for the promisor to go back on those assurances. The judgment provides a detailed illustration of how the court evaluates such claims, applies the evidential tests, and determines the appropriate remedy to satisfy the equity created.

The claimant, Mr Richard Armstrong, had lived and worked for decades on North Cowton Grange Farm, one of two farms owned by his parents, Alan and Margaret Armstrong. Richard had been assured from a young age by his parents that this farm would eventually be his inheritance. Relying on these assurances, he shaped his life around the farm, for example, he forewent a university engineering degree to study agriculture, intending to work on the family farm in expectation of future ownership. After finishing agricultural college, Richard moved into the North Cowton farmhouse in 1987 and managed that farm under Alan’s oversight, raising his own family there over the ensuing years.

Throughout the next 30 plus years, Alan and Margaret repeatedly promised Richard that he would inherit North Cowton upon their deaths. This understanding was shared within the family, it was long believed that Richard would inherit North Cowton, while his brother Simon, who worked on the other farm, Allerton Grange, would inherit that farm. Indeed, the parents’ wills made in 2000 left their estate equally to Richard and Simon, reflecting the one-farm-each plan. They included specific legacies for other children, and leaving the residuary of the estate equally to Richard and Simon. After Margaret died in 2018, Alan even signed a letter of instruction to solicitors confirming that in a new will North Cowton should go to Richard and Allerton Grange to Simon, consistent with the longstanding promises.

However, shortly before Alan’s own death, events took a drastic turn. In January 2020, Alan made a new will that left North Cowton to Richard’s nephew, George (Simon’s son and a grandchild of Alan) and completely disinherited Richard. Richard thus discovered in late 2020, after over 34 years of working on the farm, that his father had reneged on the promises, leaving him with no share of the farm or estate. Richard brought a claim against Simon and George Armstrong, as the administrators and beneficiaries of his late Father’s estate, asserting that given the history of assurances and his reliance on them, it would be unconscionable to deny him the farm. He sought to have the promises upheld through proprietary estoppel. Separate claims under inheritance legislation were also raised in the alternative, which are discussed briefly at the end of this article.

Legal Principles on Proprietary Estoppel

The High Court recited the elements of proprietary estoppel that Richard needed to establish. In summary, the claimant must prove:

• A clear and unambiguous promise or assurance by the defendant, which appears intended to be taken seriously and on which it is reasonable for the claimant to rely (the “promise requirement”). Casual statements of current intention or mere family expectations are not enough, the assurance must be understood as a firm commitment or guarantee. The judge noted prior cases where vague remarks, for example, “all going to be yours when I am gone”, were held insufficient, illustrating that the promise must be truly meant as a binding pledge.
• Reliance on the promise to the claimant’s detriment, in circumstances where the reliance was reasonable (the “reliance and detriment” requirements). There must be a causal link: the claimant took actions or refrained from other opportunities specifically because of the promise. The detriment suffered need not be purely financial; it can be any substantial disadvantage or change of position, so long as it is significant in the context of the person’s life. The detriment must be substantial and directly caused by reliance on the promise. The guiding question, as cited by the judge, is whether “repudiation of an assurance is or is not unconscionable in all the circumstances”, given the extent of the claimant’s reliance and resulting detriment.
• An overarching principle that it would be unconscionable for the promisor to go back on the assurance. Unconscionability is assessed in light of the above elements, if a clear promise was relied upon to the promisee’s substantial detriment, equity intervenes to prevent the promisor from acting unjustly. The aim is to prevent or undo the unconscionable conduct, rather than strictly to enforce the promise or compensate loss in a vacuum. In many cases, the most appropriate relief is to fulfil the promise, to the extent necessary to avoid unfairness, although the exact remedy may be adjusted for practical justice.

In short, if someone is promised an interest in property, reasonably relies on that promise to their detriment, and it would be unjust to later deny them the promised interest, the court can enforce a remedy to satisfy the equity created by that reliance.

The Court’s Reasoning and Findings

Mr Andrew Sutcliffe KC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, found in Richard’s favour on the proprietary estoppel claim. The judgment methodically addressed each element of the doctrine as it applied to the facts:

Promises and Assurances: The court concluded that Alan and Margaret did make clear promises to Richard, over a span of more than 35 years, that North Cowton Farm would belong to Richard in the end. Richard testified, and the judge accepted, that as far back as his teenage years, his parents repeatedly assured him he would inherit North Cowton, which influenced his life choices. He could not recall exact words from decades past, but there were numerous instances of such assurances. The consistency of these promises was corroborated by other evidence. For example, when Richard and his wife moved into the farmhouse in the late 1980s, the understanding that it would be their family’s permanent home was reinforced. When Richard’s first son was born, Alan quipped that Richard now had “an heir and a spare” implying that Richard’s children would succeed him on the farm, a remark the judge viewed as confirming Alan’s intention that North Cowton would pass down through Richard’s line. In around 2010, Margaret even showed Richard her will, and Alan’s mirror will, which left their residuary estates equally to Richard and Simon, explicitly to assure him that the promised inheritance was secured in writing. Even as late as 2017, during a reorganisation of the farm business, Alan told Richard the reason for splitting the two farms’ operations was that he “would not live for ever” and it needed to be “easier for Richard to keep running North Cowton after he inherited it” on Alan’s death. All of these instances led the court to find that unequivocal assurances had been made, and that Richard reasonably understood them as serious promises, not merely statements of current intent or affectionate hopes. Notably, the judge also pointed out that Margaret was fully supportive of these promises; she frequently reiterated to Richard that the farm would be his, and it is likely she kept Alan informed of these conversations. The family’s shared understanding for decades was that Richard would eventually inherit North Cowton, and nothing contradicted that until Alan’s change of heart in 2020.

Reliance and Detriment: Given those longstanding promises, the court found that Richard reasonably relied on them to his detriment. The judgment identified multiple ways in which Richard’s life and finances were shaped by the expectation of inheriting North Cowton. First, as mentioned, Richard chose his education and career path based on the promised inheritance, he declined a likely university career in engineering (with far greater earning potential) and instead committed himself to the lower-paid work of running the family farm. The judge inferred that, had it not been for the promise of the farm, Richard would not have remained at North Cowton: he would have sought a different career and purchased his own home elsewhere, perhaps with his parents’ help, rather than effectively tying his fortunes to the farm. Second, Richard devoted over 34 years of his working life to North Cowton on the strength of his parents’ assurances. He worked long hours on the farm for modest remuneration, and he did not pursue other opportunities or build up alternative livelihoods. Importantly, the court noted that Richard and his wife enjoyed rent-free occupation of the farmhouse and he did receive wages over the years, but these were relatively meagre. In fact, Richard was essentially paid a low “farm worker’s wage”, with no overtime, despite effectively managing the farm; at times he even worked without pay during crises, such as a 15-month period during a foot-and-mouth outbreak. When Richard pointed out to his mother that he was being paid less than even the hired farm hands, Margaret’s response was that “he would end up with the farm”, a clear indication that his parents expected him to accept lower financial rewards in the short term because of the promised long-term reward. By the time Richard learned in 2020 that Alan had cut him out of the inheritance, he had no realistic fallback: his entire career was farming, he had no other trade or savings to show for all those years, and he was still living in a home owned by the farm, now at risk of being taken from him. The judge found that this “some substantial net detriment”, the loss of a lifetime of potential earnings, career development, and the surrender of any independent stake in property, was directly caused by Richard’s reliance on Alan’s promises. As the court succinctly put it, Richard altered his position in life irretrievably on the faith of eventually inheriting North Cowton.

Unconscionability: In light of the above, the court held it would be wholly unconscionable for Alan’s estate to deny Richard the promised inheritance. Mr Sutcliffe KC stressed that Alan’s last-minute will in 2020 “repudiated the reasonable expectation” that Richard had been encouraged to develop since the 1980s. By making that will and leaving the farm to someone else just months before he died, Alan reneged on a promise that had been reiterated and relied upon for over 35 years, an action the judge described plainly as unconscionable given the history. Furthermore, one particular aspect of Alan’s conduct made the reneging even more inequitable. After Margaret’s death, Richard was entitled to a share of his Mother’s estate, but the family agreed to execute a deed of variation so that Alan could keep Margaret’s assets until his own death. The deed of variation was signed on 2 April 2019, at which point, it was understood, the farm and assets would pass to the sons as originally promised. Alan induced Richard to sign that deed of variation by assuring him it would not prejudice Richard’s inheritance of North Cowton. Richard thus gave up a substantial immediate inheritance from his Mother, the judge noted this was worth well over £1 million, in exchange for the promised future interest in the farm. For Alan to later reverse course and disinherit Richard after extracting that concession was, in the court’s view, especially unconscionable. By early 2020, Richard had spent his entire adult life in reliance on Alan’s word; it was simply “too late for Alan to decide unilaterally that the farming life was not for Richard after all”. The judge contrasted Alan’s conduct with Margaret’s. Margaret never wavered from the promises and left her will unchanged at death, so she did not act unconscionably. Alan’s change of heart alone created the inequity.

The defendants attempted to argue that there was nothing unconscionable in Alan’s actions, contending that Richard’s long residence and role at North Cowton were effectively an act of parental indulgence or charity. They suggested that Alan had allowed Richard to stay on the farm out of affection despite doubts about his farming ability, and thus Alan was free to change his mind about the inheritance without it being unfair. The judge firmly rejected this narrative. He found no credible evidence that Richard was unskilled or lazy. On the contrary, Richard had worked hard under challenging conditions. North Cowton’s land was not easy to farm profitably. Allegations about his performance largely came from Simon, who it was said had a history of undermining Richard in the eyes of their parents. Moreover, even if Alan had doubts, he never told Richard or took any steps to formally remove him from the farm until the secret change of will. The court noted that years earlier, the eldest brother David had similarly been promised the farm and then found those promises broken, which led David to leave the family business, a pattern that underscored Alan’s tendency to make and retract such commitments. In Richard’s case, however, Alan allowed the assurances to stand for decades, and only when he was near death did he attempt to undo them. Given the lengthy reliance, the significant sacrifices made by Richard, and Alan’s awareness of the harm that reneging would cause, the High Court had little difficulty in declaring Alan’s reversal to be unconscionable.

Having found in Richard’s favour on all the elements of proprietary estoppel, clear promises, detrimental reliance, and unconscionability, the court ruled that Richard succeeded in his claim. In other words, an equity had arisen in Richard’s favour, and the only remaining question was how to satisfy that equity through a suitable remedy. The judgment noted that, ordinarily, the fulfilment of the promise, i.e. transferring the farm or equivalent value to Richard, would be the starting point for a remedy, unless justice required some variation. In this case, the parties agreed to adjourn the exact question of relief to a further hearing, so that the court could determine the precise way to satisfy the equity, for example, by ordering the farm to be transferred to Richard or by some monetary compensation, in light of the findings. What is clear from the High Court’s decision, however, is that Richard established his right to a remedy: the decades-old promise that he would inherit North Cowton is one that equity will enforce, rather than allow Alan’s estate to ignore.

Finally, the court considered Richard’s alternative claim for financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Having found that Richard was financially dependent on his father and that Alan’s will left him with nothing, the court concluded that the will failed to make reasonable financial provision for Richard. However, the judge decided to defer any award under the 1975 Act until after determining the proprietary estoppel remedy. The question of relief has been adjourned to a further hearing, at which the court will decide how to satisfy the equity in Richard’s favour, for example, by transferring North Cowton Farm to him or by an equivalent payment. At that stage, the court also indicated there should be a clean break between the brothers, for instance, by requiring one to indemnify the other against any liabilities attached to property the other receives, in order to finally resolve all financial issues in the case.

Need advice on a will, estate or inheritance dispute?

Speak to a specialist solicitor today. Call 0151 541 2040 or 0203 846 2862, email info@carruthers-law.co.uk, or contact us online.

Related content

• Contesting a Will – Will Dispute Solicitors
• Reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
• Inheritance disputes

Disclaimer: This article provides general information only. It does not constitute legal advice and must not be relied upon. You should obtain legal advice on the facts of your case.