Richard Winter & Anor v Philip Winter & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2393 (Ch)
Richard John Winter & Anor v Philip Henry Winter & Anor
21 June 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 699
Court of Appeal
Three brothers worked in their family farm business. The parents promised the business would be split equally. Two brothers received little pay but worked hard for years, believing the promise. The father's will mostly left the farm to the third brother. A court said it was unfair (unconscionable) to go back on the promise, even though the two brothers had earned money. The court found that the lifelong commitment and loss of opportunities outweighed the financial gains.
Key Facts
- •Richard and Adrian Winter (claimants) and Philip Winter (defendant) are brothers who worked in their parents' market gardening business.
- •The business assets included Bower Farm, which was sold for £7.8 million.
- •The parents assured the sons that the business and assets would be divided equally among them.
- •Richard and Adrian worked in the business for many years with relatively low pay, while profits were reinvested.
- •The father left his estate primarily to Philip, leading to the proprietary estoppel claim.
Legal Principles
Proprietary estoppel requires a representation or assurance, reliance, and detriment.
Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18
Equity prevents unconscionable conduct; detriment must be considered in the round, and whether it would be unjust to disregard the assurance.
Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210; Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008] UKHL 55
Detriment is required for a proprietary estoppel claim and is not a narrow concept; it need not be quantifiable.
Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210; Jennings v Rice [2002] EWCA Civ 159; Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27
Where there are both benefits and disadvantages from reliance, the court must weigh them against each other.
Henry v Henry [2010] UKPC 3; Davies v Davies [2014] EWCA Civ 568
An appellate court can only interfere with a finding of detriment if it is perverse or clearly wrong.
Davies v Davies [2014] EWCA Civ 568
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Court of Appeal found that the judge had implicitly weighed the non-financial disadvantages against financial benefits, concluding that the detriment suffered by Richard and Adrian outweighed the financial benefits received.