Print article
Authors
Authors
The remedy hearing in the case of Armstrong v Armstong [2025] exemplifies the court’s expansive jurisdiction for proprietary estoppel claims. Not only was the claimant awarded the promised farm but its existing debts were split proportionately between the parties.
Background
The case centred on an inheritance dispute between two brothers over two farms (North Cowton and Allerton Grange).
When their father died, Richard was disinherited, and his brother Simon and Simon’s son inherited the family farms. Richard claimed that his father had promised him North Cowton and he relied on this, living, working and managing the farm.
The 2024 judgment found in favour of Richard’s proprietary estoppel claim.
The Court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Richard had been promised North Cowton, he had relied on this to his detriment and it was unconscionable for Richard to have been disinherited.
For a reminder of the facts and analysis of the decision on liability please see our previous article here.
Armstrong v Armstrong [2025]
The latest decision dealt with the remedy for Richard’s claim.
- The Court followed the approach in Guest v Guest [2024] – relief to be granted in proprietary estoppel claims should be determined based on ‘prevention or undoing of unconscionable conduct, not expectation fulfilment or detriment compensation.’
- Fulfilment of the promise was the starting point, i.e. awarding Richard the promised farm, North Cowton, without any debt. The judge noted, nonetheless, that ‘practicality, justice between the parties and fairness to third parties may call for a reduced or different award.’
- Richard argued he should receive North Cowton unencumbered by any debt or receive a lump sum equating to its unencumbered value. He asserted that the loans taken out by Simon without his knowledge or agreement, should not be his responsibility.
- Simon argued the starting point should be North Cowton burdened with a reasonable proportion of the combined debts which had accrued on both farms. Simon claimed that if Allerton Grange was burdened with most of the debt, it would not be a viable business. The Court tended to agree, finding that Richard was promised to inherit North Cowton, but not to inherit the farm free of all or most of the debt.
Conclusion
The parties never agreed how debts should be proportioned between them and therefore, the Court held that the debts should be divided proportionately to the comparative value of the farms.
As North Cowton was valued at £3.128 million, 50.81% of the combined value of the farms, the Court considered it ‘just and appropriate’ for Richard to take liability for 50.81% of the combined debts. Simon would take responsibility for the remaining 49.19% of the combined debts plus a £250,000 loan taken out by Simon and his son without Richard’s knowledge or consent.
This case displays the discretion of the Court in proprietary estoppel cases to arrive at decisions based on a general sense of fairness. Each judge may have a unique interpretation of how to best remedy the unconscionable conduct while striking the balance to achieve justice between the parties.