MacDonald had a farm….that was split six ways

The case of MacDonald v Rose [2019] EWCA Civ 4 brought to the forefront the key elements of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. The case lends itself to being memorable in the future by many law students as it relates to Mr Macdonald and a farm.

A contested Will and a family feud

Mr MacDonald brought a claim before the courts on the death of his parents and after he discovered that the family farm was to be split between his parent’s six children and not left solely to him. 

Mr MacDonald claimed that his parents had assured him over many years that he would receive the bulk of their estate on the basis of him continuing to work on the family farm during their lifetime. He claimed therefore that he worked on the family farm in reliance of these assurances and that it was unconscionable for his parents’ estates not to give effect to those assurances. His five siblings objected and sought to uphold their parents will which saw the assets split across all six children.

The siblings, the defendants, told the Court that they were a close-knit family. They added that no child was ever favoured above and beyond another. In addition, they stated that each sibling had been told on several occasions that they would all share in the estate. The Court heard from numerous witnesses, including non-family members, all of whom provided an account of events strongly supporting the defendants’ position.

The Court found that the substantial witness evidence produced by the defendants was persuasive.  The Judge noted that Mr MacDonald had run his own successful business and that during this time had not worked on the farm. The Judge considered that it could not therefore have been the case that as a family member he had worked his whole life on the farm for little recompense. The Judge concluded that Mr MacDonald’s parents had not given the assurances as alleged and the case was dismissed. The Court of Appeal reviewed the matter and upheld that decision.

The proprietary estoppel – A promise

This case saw the Court consider a legal doctrine known as proprietary estoppel. There are 4 elements to proprietary estoppel; namely:

• A promise
• An act in the reliance upon the promise
• A detriment suffered
• The unconscionability of the position

A claimant must show that there was a promise made to them. The actions of the claimant must then be to rely upon that promise. When reasonably relying on a promise made, the claimant must show that they have suffered some form of detriment. Finally, it must be unconscionable for the promisor to be permitted to retract his or her promise.

A Court determines how best to satisfy what an equitable right is when a claim is established. It is a matter of justice being seen to be done.

Each case is decided upon its own individual facts. The MacDonald case demonstrated that it is necessary to show that all the elements of proprietary estoppel are connected and that witness evidence can be critical.

For further advice and assistance please contact our Private Client Team on 01604 828282 / 01908 660966 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk