Richard Gordon Armstrong v Simon James Armstrong & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2989 (Ch)
Irving John Cleave & Anor v Mary Louise Cleave
17 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2492 (Ch)
High Court
A son worked on his family's farm his whole life believing he'd inherit it. His mother then tried to take it away. The judge ruled that the son should get the farm because the mother had promised it to him, even though there was some dodgy paperwork involved. The mother's claims that her son tricked her were not believed.
Key Facts
- •Dispute between a 91-year-old mother (Mary) and her son (Irving) and daughter-in-law (Caroline) over a 52-acre farm.
- •Irving claims proprietary estoppel, stating he worked his life on the farm for low pay based on assurances of inheritance.
- •A 2022 trust deed and property transfer (TP1) transferred 'Trust Land' to a discretionary trust benefiting Irving and Caroline. Mary alleges undue influence, non est factum, and unconscionable bargain.
- •Significant investment by Caroline (£127,000) and Irving (£172,875 + £18,000) in farm building conversion, including an annexe for Mary.
- •Mary moved into the annexe, then made allegations of bullying and abuse, leading to these proceedings.
Legal Principles
Proprietary estoppel requires representation, reliance, and detriment; unconscionability determines remedy.
Davies v. Davies [2016] 1 FLR 1286 at [38]; Guest v. Guest [2022] 3 WLR 911
Valid deed execution requires signature in the attesting witness's presence (s1(3), Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989).
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, s1(3)
A trust can be validly constituted if the owner declares a trust or transfers property to a trustee (Milroy v Lord). Exceptions exist (T. Choitheram International S.A. v. Pagarani).
T. Choithram International SA v Pagarani [2001] 1 WLR 1, PC; Bowack v. Saxton [2020] EWHC 1049 (Ch)
Non est factum requires non-negligent signing and a fundamentally different understanding of the document.
CF Asset Finance Ltd v. Okonji [2014] ECC 23 at [28]
Undue influence requires proof of a relationship of influence and a transaction requiring explanation; presumption rebuttable.
Snell’s Equity at paragraph 8-031; National Westminster Bank v. Morgan [1985] AC 686
Unconscionable bargain requires vulnerability, undervalue, and unconscionable defendant conduct.
Azam v. Molazam [2023] EWHC 2202 (Ch)
Clean hands doctrine requires sufficiently close connection between improper conduct and equitable remedy sought.
Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation & Others v Yuri Privalov & Ors [2008] EWHC 1748 (Comm)
Outcomes
Proprietary estoppel claim largely successful.
Irving's lifelong work on the farm for low pay, based on assurances of inheritance, constituted detrimental reliance. The judge found Mary's evidence unreliable and gave greater weight to the testimony of Irving, Caroline, and the professional witnesses.
Trust deed and TP1 valid; Trust properly constituted.
The judge accepted Sarah Moore's corrected testimony regarding witnessing the Trust Deed. Despite Nula Robinson only witnessing Irving's signature on the TP1, the trust was deemed validly constituted under T. Choithram International S.A. v. Pagarani principles, given Mary's declared intention and ownership of the land.
Claims of undue influence, non est factum, duress, and unconscionable bargain rejected.
The judge found Mary acted of her own free will, despite her claims of being pressured. The professional witnesses' testimony supported this. The judge found no evidence that Mary was misled or lacked capacity.
Ford Sierra Cosworth ownership awarded to Irving by survivorship.
The judge accepted Irving's evidence and considered the car's inclusion in partnership accounts irrelevant to its ownership.