We have adopted a specialist team approach to our practices for many years. We feel that this is the way our clients want us to work, and that specialisation leads to the provision of a better service.
We have adopted a specialist team approach to our practices for many years. We feel that this is the way our clients want us to work, and that specialisation leads to the provision of a better service.
Insights
26/06/2024
On 21 June 2024, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Winter v Winter. The decision provides useful and authoritative analysis of the principles and authorities relevant to the detriment stage of proprietary estoppel claims.
This was an appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Zacaroli sitting in the High Court in Bristol in 2023. In which he had found in favour of the claim by the respondents, two sons, to an interest in part of their late father’s estate on the basis of proprietary estoppel. Despite their father latterly making a will which purported to leave nearly all his estate to the appellant, his other son. The Judge found that the father assured his sons they would equally inherit his share of the family business and its property. And that they relied on these assurances. These findings were not challenged.
The appellant argued against Zacaroli J’s finding of detriment, asserting that the respondents needed to prove they had foregone an opportunity that would have put them in a better position financially or otherwise. The Judge found that the respondents had suffered unquantifiable detriment by committing their working lives to the family business based on the assurances, but also noted they likely would not have accumulated as much wealth in alternative careers. The Judge failed to weigh these factors when assessing net detriment.
Lord Justice Newey, with whom Lady Justice Falk and Lord Justice Moylan agreed, held that the Judge had carried out the necessary, although sometimes difficult, evaluative exercise of weighing non-financial disadvantage, even where unquantifiable, against financial benefit and had made a finding of net detriment in reliance on the assurances given. The Court determined that the Judge was justified in making this finding, based on the pleadings, the facts of the case, and established authority (including Gillett v Holt, Suggitt v Suggitt, Habberfield v Habberfield, and Spencer v Spencer).
Newey LJ held, at para. [52], that: “to succeed in a proprietary estoppel claim, a claimant needs to show sufficiently substantial net detriment of whatever kind. Where, however, a claimant has made a life-changing choice and over many years undertaken work in reliance on an assurance, the Court will probably be prepared to treat loss of opportunity to lead a different life as itself detrimental without requiring the claimant to prove, or itself trying to determine, quite what the claimant would have done and with what consequences… That will not automatically be the case, however. If, say, it can be seen that the claimant has derived considerable financial benefits from working on the farm, those must be weighed against the loss of the ‘possibility of other options’.”
The Court of Appeal decision can be found at [2024] EWCA Civ 699 (and the High Court decision is at [2023] EWHC 2393 (Ch), [2024] WTLR 327). The High Court decision generated national media attention and legal comment, and the Court of Appeal decision is one for practitioners to understand when dealing with claims in the area.
Hugh Sims KC and Michael Selway, instructed by Berensens Solicitors, acted for the successful respondents.
Sign up
To be kept up-to-date with our latest news and future events, please complete the short form.
A member of the clerking team will help you resolve your request.
© 2024 - Guildhall Chambers | Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board.
Website designed and developed by tela.
