Irving John Cleave & Anor v Mary Louise Cleave
[2024] EWHC 2492 (Ch)
Richard Gordon Armstrong v Simon James Armstrong & Anor
22 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2989 (Ch)
High Court
A son sued his dad's estate because his dad promised him a farm but left it to someone else in his will. The judge believed the son and said the dad acted unfairly. The son also won because his dad hadn't provided enough for him in the will. The judge will decide later how much the son gets.
Key Facts
- •Richard Armstrong claimed proprietary estoppel against his father's estate, alleging promises of inheriting North Cowton farm.
- •Alternatively, Richard claimed reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
- •Alan Armstrong's will left North Cowton to Richard's nephew, George, and nothing to Richard.
- •Richard worked on North Cowton farm for over 30 years.
- •A deed of variation altered Margaret Armstrong's (Alan's wife) will, transferring her estate to Alan.
- •Evidence was presented from numerous family members, with conflicting accounts of events and promises.
- •Alan's mental capacity and alcohol consumption were questioned towards the end of his life.
Legal Principles
Proprietary estoppel requires an unambiguous promise, reasonable reliance, and substantial detriment.
Various case law cited, including Thorner v Major [2009] 1 WLR 776, Cook v Thomas [2010] EWCA Civ 227, James v James [2018] EWHC 43 (Ch), Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210.
Testamentary freedom is a fundamental principle of English law.
Blathwayt v Baron Cawley [1976] AC 397
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975: determines reasonable financial provision for dependents based on various factors.
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
Outcomes
Richard's proprietary estoppel claim succeeded.
The court found that Alan made unambiguous promises to Richard regarding inheriting North Cowton, Richard relied on these promises to his detriment, and Alan's actions were unconscionable.
Richard's claim under the 1975 Act also succeeded.
The court found Alan failed to make reasonable financial provision for Richard in his will, given Richard's financial dependence on Alan.