The son of a farmer whose final will disinherited him has succeeded in his proprietary estoppel claim and his claim for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

For a claim of proprietary estoppel to succeed, it is necessary to show that a promise was made and that the claimant reasonably relied on that promise. The claimant must also have suffered a substantial detriment as a result.

The son had managed and lived on a farm owned by his parents since 1987. In 2000, the farmer and his wife had made mirror wills which, after other bequests, left the residue of their estates equally to the son and another of their sons who worked on another farm they owned.

The farmer's wife died in 2018, by which time the two farms had been split into separate businesses. The beneficiaries of her will agreed to a deed of variation by which her estate would pass to her husband. After the farmer died in 2020, the son discovered that he had been disinherited under his last will, made earlier that year, and launched proceedings.

The High Court heard evidence from a number of members of the family. The Court noted that the son had signed the deed of variation in the knowledge that, under his mother's will, he was entitled to half the residue of her estate. At the time it had clearly been intended that, after the farmer's death, the two sons would each inherit the farm they managed. The Court accepted the son's evidence that his parents had repeatedly promised him over the years that he would inherit the farm. Those promises were meant as statements on which he could reasonably be expected to rely, and were intended to be binding and irrevocable.

The son had attended agricultural college rather than going to university to study engineering. He had worked on the farm for a modest income, and had assumed responsibility for its debts when it became a separate business. He had also surrendered his interest in his mother's estate when he signed the deed of variation. The Court concluded that he had reasonably relied on the promise made to him and had clearly suffered a substantial detriment when it was broken. It was unconscionable for the farmer to renege on his promise. The proprietary estoppel claim therefore succeeded.

The Court went on to consider the son's claim for reasonable financial provision. Upholding the claim, the Court found that there was little doubt that he had been financially dependent on the farmer, who had made no provision for him at all in his final will.