Simon Nigel Morton & Anor. v Julie Morton
[2023] EWCA Civ 700
Julie Annette Merryman v Alex Raymond Merryman & Ors
14 March 2024
[2024] EWFC 58 (B)
Family Court
Four siblings worked on their father's farm for years without pay, believing they'd inherit the farm and some other properties. The judge agreed they get a share of the main farm properties (based on promises made), but not a smaller property or their stepmother's house, as there wasn't enough proof of a promise about those.
Key Facts
- •Financial remedy proceedings between Alexander Raymond Merryman (65) and Julie Annette Merryman (59).
- •Intervenors: Alexander's four adult children from a previous relationship.
- •Dispute concerns four properties: Border View Farm, Heavygate Road, Dunston Farm, and Smugglers.
- •Intervenors claim one-sixth share in each property based on partnership property or proprietary estoppel.
- •All six parties were equal partners in the farming business (AR Merryman and Family) as per a 2020 partnership agreement.
- •Intervenors worked on the farm without salaries, contributing significantly to its growth.
- •Partnership agreement poorly drafted, leading to ambiguity regarding property ownership.
- •Alex supports the intervenors' claim; Julie disputes it, claiming the properties were not partnership assets.
Legal Principles
Construction of partnership agreements: ascertaining the partners' intention as expressed in the agreement, considering all reasonably available background knowledge.
Watson v Haggitt [1928] AC 127; ICS Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1988] 1 WLR 898; Yafai v Muthana [2012] EWCA Civ 289
Partnership Act 1890, Section 21: Property bought with partnership money is deemed partnership property unless contrary intention appears.
Partnership Act 1890, Section 21
Determining if property is partnership property: considering circumstances of acquisition (financing), purpose, and subsequent handling.
Ham v Bell [2016] EWHC 1791 (CH); Miles v Clarke [1953] 1 WLR 537; Wild v Wild [2018] EHWC 2197 (Ch)
Proprietary estoppel: A person acting to their detriment on the faith of a belief (known and encouraged by another) regarding a property right cannot be denied that right if it would be unconscionable.
In Re Basham decd [1986] 1 WLR 1498; Spencer v Spencer [2023] EWHC 2050 (Ch); Gillett v Holt; Thorner v Major; Gladstone v White [2023] EWHC 329 (Ch)
Remedy for proprietary estoppel: Preventing unconscionable conduct, starting point is fulfilling the promise, but practicality, justice, and fairness to third parties may influence the award.
Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, Section 2: Lack of written documentation doesn't invalidate an existing partnership or prevent an estoppel claim.
Lindley & Banks on Partnership Chapter 7 Section 2; Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, Section 2
Outcomes
Intervenors have a one-sixth share in Border View Farm and Dunston Farm.
Common understanding that these properties were partnership assets, supported by evidence of intervenors' significant contributions and lack of explicit contrary assurances. Proprietary estoppel also established.
Intervenors have no interest in Heavygate Road or Smugglers.
Insufficient evidence of a common understanding that these properties were partnership assets. Julie's evidence regarding their purpose (pension and personal residence, respectively) found credible.