Proprietary estoppel 2025 cases: three cautionary tales

Proprietary estoppel (PE) is a well-established principle that promotes fairness when informal promises about land or property, often in farming contexts, are not kept in circumstances where someone has relied on those promises to their detriment.

These three cases handed down in 2025, serve as cautionary tales for anyone considering challenging the validity of a will or pursuing a claim for proprietary estoppel. Each claim involved lengthy and expensive court proceedings and demonstrates the need to be on very firm legal ground, with the right legal team in place. They also reinforce the principle of testamentary freedom, regardless of any disappointment felt by the beneficiaries.

Claimant inherits Cornish farm, defendant pays costs

This unusual case, Ellis v Ellis & Ors, saw the claimant – who was due to inherit the farm – represented by Katie Alsop and Charlotte Kahrman. The defendant, Vivian Care, who was the deceased’s brother and a ‘disappointed beneficiary’ repeatedly delayed his threatened challenge to the deceased’s will, preventing the will from being proved by the executors. As the judge noted at trial, the claimant had “got understandably fed up with waiting for Vivian [the defendant] to formulate his case.”

The deceased, Keith Care, left his share of the family farm to his farming friend and neighbour, Luke Ellis, who shared his lifelong enthusiasm for rare breeds. Vivian, claimed his brother intended to leave his share of the farm to him and his sons to keep it in the family. He argued that Keith lacked testamentary capacity due to a personality disorder, on account of favouring his beloved cattle over people, and that Keith’s will had not been signed and witnessed properly. Vivian also claimed an interest in the farm by way of a proprietary estoppel claim, relying on repeated assurances that the farm would remain in the family and to him.

The judge found Keith’s will had been properly executed; he had capacity and he knew and approved its contents. Turning to the proprietary estoppel claim, the judge ruled that an expectation that Tregear Farm would stay in the family was not an assurance sufficient to support a claim. Vivian could not point to anything that amounted to detrimental reliance. The judge acknowledged that although the family’s disappointment was genuine, it did not give rise to any remedy.

The judgment did not uphold any part of Vivian’s case. By nominating Luke as the principal beneficiary, Keith was exercising his right to testamentary freedom based on who he felt was best placed to inherit his beloved livestock and the farm. Vivian’s decision to challenge his brother’s will was misguided, as was his proprietary estoppel claim. The judge noted: “The worst that can be said against Keith is that he did not live up to expectations that he had allowed to develop within the family.”

Vivian was ordered to pay Luke’s costs plus those of the executors (the first and second defendants) – a rare but reasonable decision given the case’s lack of merit. Luke had made a pre-trial offer to settle which led to a partial indemnity costs and interest order against Vivian. His application for permission to appeal was refused.

Son fails to prove proprietary estoppel claim or father’s lack of testamentary capacity

Scott v Redgrave Scott attracted considerable publicity, featuring a large, dysfunctional family and some ‘sharp’ business practices. Adam Scott, the second eldest of Richard Scott’s 19 children, brought claims for proprietary estoppel and to contest what he said was an invalid will.

In addition to owning several farms in Cheshire, Richard owned individual parcels of land with development potential and other lucrative business interests, including a car boot business which he ran with Adam. Over 20 years, Richard made seven wills. Only the first, made in 1995, gave Adam the right to rent the whole holding for 40 years, plus the right to buy the farms within five years of Richard’s death at probate value. Subsequent wills did not feature this promise to ‘confer a central role’ on Adam, leading Adam to question Richard’s testamentary capacity and issue a proprietary estoppel claim after his father’s death.

The court found Richard had not consistently promised the farm to Adam during his lifetime and there was no evidence Adam relied on this promise after 2003 when Richard withdrew it. Although the court found Adam suffered detriment in the form of long working hours, significant investment of time and the taking on of considerable risk, it concluded that the financial benefits he accrued from the sale of land to a developer outweighed any detriment.

Ultimately, the judge found that Adam did not meet the threshold to prove his proprietary estoppel claim, nor was the unconscionability test met. Adam’s attempt at contesting the will on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and lack of knowledge and approval also failed.

Grandsons fail to prove grandmother promised them her farm

Maile & Anor v Maile & Ors was another unusual case in which two grandsons issued a proprietary estoppel claim against their grandmother’s estate, as well as contesting her will. Proving detriment is essential for a successful proprietary estoppel claim, but the judge noted it was ”curious” that younger family members were making a claim when, by reference to their age, they were much less likely to have suffered detriment having not devoted all their lives to the farm and had pursued other opportunities.

The claimants’ grandmother, Mary Stevens, made a codicil in 2011 leaving the farm to her grandsons, but her final will in 2016 reverted to the terms of her 2006 will, leaving the farm to her two daughters, Ruth Maile and Sheila Kempthorne. The dispute arose when Ruth’s sons, Steven and John, claimed that the contents of Mary’s will indicated she lacked testamentary capacity, did not know or approve its contents and was subject to Sheila’s undue influence.

The court disagreed, finding that Mary’s 2006 will was consistent with her and her late husband’s desire to leave the farm equally to their daughters. The judge noted that, by entering a partnership with her grandsons in 2015, Mary had correctly assumed this would give them an opportunity to buy the farm from their mother and aunt after her death.

The grandsons’ proprietary estoppel claim also failed. They could not prove they were given unequivocal assurances that they would inherit the farm, or that they had relied on any such assurances. Likewise, they were not found to have suffered detriment. They had already received substantial sums from their grandmother and the partnership, which weakened any estoppel arguments, and also they also stood to inherit their father’s farm.

The judge commented: “Surely it should have been possible for the huge amounts of money spent on this litigation to have been put to better use by doing what the deceased always wanted her family to do, which was to ensure a fair split of her estate.” This is another example of a claim being brought with insufficiently strong evidence to back it.

Pursuing a proprietary estoppel claim

General principles apply to every proprietary estoppel claim, but each case turns on its particular facts. Correct analysis is critical to establish if there are reasonable grounds for pursuing a claim.

If you believe you have grounds for contesting a will or making a PE claim, consult a solicitor who understands the legal procedures and will be honest with you about your chances of success. Pursuing a case without a solid foundation is risky and likely to attract criticism from the court, especially if it relies on the hope your opponent will give in.

It’s also vital to instruct an expert in the correct discipline (as with the personality disorder in the Ellis case) to ensure any case dependent on specialist evidence can be properly assessed.

As lawyers who specialise in proprietary estoppel and will disputes, we can advise whether you have strong grounds to bring a claim and, where the issue arises after death, whether there’s scope to contest the will or seek reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance Act 1975.

If you have good prospects of success, we’ll work with you to resolve the dispute as quickly and sensibly as possible without going to court. If court proceedings are necessary, our team has extensive trial experience in these types of cases.