Claim for possession: estoppel defence fails for want of representation, reliance or detriment

To succeed in a claim in proprietary estoppel the elements of representation, reliance and detriment must all be present, so rendering repudiation of the promise unconscionable. In Vasami and another v Hack and another [2023] EWHC 2431 (Ch), the High Court has dismissed a defence for want of those essential elements. The claimants sought possession of Glasfryn, a 93-acre farm in Ceredigion, Wales, which they acquired in 1988. They allowed their nephew, the first defendant, and his family to live in the property and paid him a monthly wage to milk a dairy herd there. In 2008 the first claimant was looking to retire and was concerned about bank borrowing. It was agreed that the defendants would take over the milking business and be entitled to the profits in return for the sum of £80,000 to be paid in instalments over time to enable the first defendant to repay loans. The relationship between uncle and nephew broke down after 2010. At a meeting in 2021 the uncle offered to sell Glasfryn to the defendants for £1.4m. Their solicitors then claimed in correspondence that the defendants were sitting tenants under an agricultural tenancy and referred to promises by the first claimant of “a lifetime security of tenure”. In defence of the claim for possession the first defendant argued that, on the purchase and subsequently, his uncle had promised him the farm would be his “after his uncle’s days”. The defendants had worked long hours and incurred expenditure in reliance upon that representation. The claimants denied any such promises and there was no contemporaneous documentation. The court decided that it was inherently unlikely that such promises were made at or about the time Glasfryn was purchased when the first claimant had borrowed money to fund the purchase and paid his nephew a wage to work there. Such promises, if made,  would have been referred to in correspondence following the meeting in 2021. A tenancy or lifetime security were different from and inconsistent with a promise that the first defendant would own Glasfryn outright. There was no detrimental reliance. Initially, the first defendant was paid a wage, had free occupation of the farmhouse with bills paid and was able to take up other paid employment. After 2008 he was able to farm at Glasfryn over 15 years at a healthy profit. Finally, it was not unconscionable for the claimants to now seek possession. The defendant had failed to keep his part of the bargain and to pay the agreed £80,000 by regular monthly payments to help service his uncle’s loan. Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator