Leading national law firm Irwin Mitchell Private Wealth has provided commentary on another farming-related will dispute which has reached the High Court. Shaw v Shaw reflects a growing number of will disputes relating to farming estates – something they expect to see continue.

Nazia Nawaz, farming will disputes specialist at Irwin Mitchell Private Wealth said:

“While the decision in the case of Moore v Moore* is awaited, this farming dispute has hit the headlines: Mr Clive Shaw brought a proprietary estoppel claim against his parents on discovering that they have written him out of their wills.

“Mr Shaw claims that he worked on his parents’ farm from a very young age without pursuing any other career opportunities based on a promise that he would inherit the £1m farm. The parents’ wills do not provide for him at all and leave the bulk of the estate to his sister, who together with Mr Shaw’s mother claims that Mr Shaw ‘hated the cows’ on the farm and that he was incapable of managing the business. Mr Shaw argues that the dispute has arisen due to his mother’s dislike of his girlfriend and her belief that she is a ‘gold digger’.

“We’re seeing increasing numbers of similar claims in farming disputes where the parties fail to formalise agreements in writing at the time the promise is made. While such cases were historically brought on the death of the person that made the promise, this case is one of many where the claim has been brought in the lifetime of both parties to enforce the promise as soon as there is an indication that the promise has not been honoured in a will.

“This case also highlights the importance and need for early action where families wish to protect their family wealth. It goes to show why it is worth hiring a solicitor when it comes to wills - they are able not only to advise and represent parties in such disputes but also on strategies to minimise the risk of disputes arising in the first place.”

*Moore V Moore

A son was entitled to his father's interest in a farm and farming business by virtue of a proprietary estoppel, since he had been promised that the farm and business would pass to him and had relied on those promises to his detriment.

The first defendant and Part 20 claimant claimed an equitable interest in his father's share in a farm and farm assets by way of proprietary estoppel.

The first defendant's father had run the farm in a partnership with his brother. They had been gifted the farm by their father. The farm was a successful and profitable business. Both the father and his brother took modest drawings and most of the profit went back into the business.

The father took the lead in most farming issues. The first defendant had worked on the farm since his childhood. He became a salaried partner and then an equity partner. The father's brother retired from the business and gave his half share of the partnership to the first defendant in return for a payment from the partnership.

It was agreed that the first defendant and his father would continue to farm in partnership together. The second defendant company was set up for tax reasons and also became a partner. Farming assets were transferred to the company, which was owned as to 51% by the father and 49% by the first defendant. After the first defendant took over the running of the farm relations with his father became difficult. The father brought proceedings for dissolution of the partnership.

The first defendant claimed an equity over the farming business, including the freehold land, operated by the partnership. The issues were (1) whether there were promises to the first defendant by his father that he would one day have his father's share of the farm and assets; (2) whether there was reliance by the first defendant on those promises; (3) whether there was detriment; (4) whether it would be unconscionable for the father to resile from the promises; (5) what order should be made to give effect to any proprietary estoppel. The father suffered from Alzheimer's disease; he lacked capacity to conduct the proceedings and his wife had been appointed as his litigation friend.