When Mary Stevens passed away, her grandchildren believed they were entitled to the family farm after years of informal discussions and expectations. But in Maile and another v Maile and others [2025] EWHC 2494 (Ch), the High Court disagreed, rejecting their proprietary estoppel claim. The case is a reminder that promises and assumptions do not reflect the legal position, particularly when promises aren’t clearly made or relied upon.
Background
Mary’s 2006 Will left her estate equally between her two daughters, Ruth Maile and Sheila Kempthorne, with specific gifts to her grandsons Steven and John Maile. Steven and John had worked on the farm for years and claimed that Mary had made promises such as ‘one day this will all be yours’.
On Mary’s death in 2020, a lengthy legal battle began,
Mary’s testamentary history is complex and was centred around her desire to maintain equity within her family members.
- 2006 Will left live and deadstock to Steven and John, and the residue (including the farm) equally between her two daughters Ruth and Sheila.
- 2011 Codicil purporting to leave the farm to Steven and John
- 2016 revocation of the 2011 Codicil, restoring the 2006 Will in its full effect
- 2017 Codicil leaving a gift of a small parcel of land to Sheila, with the remainder of the 2006 Will in effect
There was also a partnership agreement which Mary had entered into with Steven and John in 2015, including an option to purchase her share after her death, and requiring them to vacate the farm within 12 months of her death.
The claims
On Mary’s death, her grandsons claimed that they had relied on Mary’s ‘promises’ to their detriment and sought to enforce them via proprietary estoppel, a particular type of claim against land assets under English law. They also challenged the codicils on grounds of undue influence and lack of capacity. Sheila counterclaimed for possession and mesne profits.
The judgement
The Judge commented that the case is unusual in that the deceased had not fallen out with any family members before her death and that the claim was brought by a relatively young second generation, rather than first, meaning a lot less of their lives had been dedicated to the farm.
The Court found no clear assurances or sufficient detrimental reliance to support proprietary estoppel. It upheld the 2006 will as reflecting Mary’s true intentions and confirmed her testamentary capacity. Sheila’s counterclaim succeeded.
Key takeaways
- Informal promises do not reflect legal realities. Verbal assurances or family understandings will rarely amount to enforceable rights without the necessary formalities being undertaken.
- Wills carry significant weight. Properly drafted testamentary documents remain the strongest indication of a person’s intentions. The Judge in this case commented on the experience of the solicitor and the detailed attendance note held significant weight in proving capacity and intention.
- Beware of competing arrangements. The 2015 Partnership Agreement muddied the waters in this case showing the importance of taking specialised legal advice from advisors who can understand the full picture
The decision here is a clear illustration of how informal family arrangements can unravel. Farms are unique assets and disputes can often arise where expectations are unrecorded or wills fail to reflect evolving intentions.
If you have any questions or would like advice tailored to your circumstances, please don’t hesitate to contact our wills and estate planning lawyers.
Contributors
Partner
Associate
