Maile v Maile – Assurances and Detriment Under the Microscope in Family Farm Claims

Proprietary estoppel has become an increasingly familiar feature of family farm related litigation, often advanced by the adult children of the original landowners. Frequently claimants are well into their 50s or 60s by the time of the claim and believe they have arranged their entire lives around assurances of future inheritance. Probate claims, which might include undue influence allegations, capacity disputes or suggestions that the deceased failed to properly understand the arrangements they were making are often pleaded in the alternative.

But when is an assurance clear enough to establish a proprietary estoppel claim?  How does this interplay with partnership arrangements? What about probate claims? Is the claimant’s age relevant when considering detriment?

Against that backdrop, this week’s Field Notes considers the High Court judgment in Maile and others v Maile and others [2025] EWHC 2494 (Ch), handed down on 6 October, a proprietary estoppel claim bought by two grandsons claiming entitlement to their deceased grandmother’s Farm.  

The case reaffirms the elements of proprietary estoppel as a doctrine while also signalling a firmer insistence or higher bar on clarity of assurance, genuine reliance and meaningful detriment. The case is of particular interest for those defending proprietary estoppel claims where assurances may be more generalised, and the reliance and detriment harder to prove.

The facts of the case

In Maile, the dispute revolved around West Hook Farm (“the Farm”) which had been in the Stevens family since 1929. The Farm was owned by Mary Stevens who had two daughters, Ruth and Sheila. Ruth, her husband Peter and their sons, Steven and John Maile - the claimants - lived and worked on the Farm with Mary. Steven and John also worked on a neighbouring farm, Agistment Farm, owned by Peter, and were partners with Peter in a farming partnership.

By a will made by Mary in 2006, Mary left the Farm to Ruth and Sheila. In a codicil dated 2011 Mary amended her 2006 Will leaving the Farm to John and Steven. However, Mary subsequently went into partnership with John and Steven in 2015, and then by a codicil dated 2016 Mary reverted to her original intention to leave the Farm to Ruth and Sheila. A codicil in 2017 had a much more limited effect, passing a parcel of additional land to Sheila. Mary died in 2020. Mary nominated both Sheila and Ruth as Executors. Sheila accepted the nomination of Executor while Ruth did not. Ruth, Steven and John continued to live on the Farm after Mary’s death.  

The Claims

Steven and John brought several claims, in the alternative:

• Ownership of the Farm by proprietary estoppel based on alleged lifetime assurances.
• Lack of testamentary capacity in relation to the 2016 and 2017 Codicils.
• Undue influence, said to have been exerted by Sheila and Mary’s solicitor.
• Lack of knowledge and approval of those Codicils.

Sheila, as executor, counterclaimed for possession of the Farm and mesne profits (payment for use and occupation - essentially equivalent to rent) because the Maile family (Ruth Peter Steven and John) had stayed on after Mary’s death, despite the Partnership Agreement requiring them to vacate.

The primary claim was in proprietary estoppel - Steven and John claimed that Mary had promised them the Farm for years and that they had relied on those promises to their detriment - so they were entitled to the Farm.

How do you establish propriety estoppel?

The Judgment in Maile (given by Mr Michael Justice Green), confirmed the elements required for a proprietary estoppel claim as set out in Thorner v Major:  

• An assurance of sufficient clarity;  
• Reliance by the claimant on that assurance;  
• Detriment to the claimant in consequence of their reasonable reliance;  
• As a result, in the circumstances which have actually happened, it would be unconscionable for a promise not to be kept either wholly or in part.  

When these criteria are met, an appropriate remedy may be granted in equity such as a proprietary right (such as the freehold title). Unfortunately for the Claimants in Maile, the Judge didn’t consider that any of the four fundamental requirements had been met.  

Assurances: generalised sentiments are not enough  

The Claimants relied on alleged statements made by Mary over many years that “one day this [the Farm] will all be yours” and “who else would it go too”. Those phrases have, in other cases, been capable of founding an estoppel (for example Guest v Guest, Armstrong v Armstrong). In Armstrong v Armstrong the Judge found that even subtle assurances like nods or body language can be sufficient assurance where in the circumstances it's reasonable.  

In this case however, the Court treated the alleged assurances made to the Claimants as generalised statements of current intentions rather than concrete commitments. That conclusion was reinforced by the contemporaneous context. For instance, Mary made some of these alleged statements while she was implementing testamentary arrangements to leave the Farm to her daughters. Further, Mary had entered into a partnership with Steven and John in 2015 for inheritance tax reasons. This Agreement contained an option for Steven and John to have the right to purchase Mary’s share in the Partnership, and the Farm, on her death. Therefore, the formalisation of this arrangement undermined the alleged assurances that had been made by Mary that the Farm would be left to them on her death.  

The Judge also found that the grandsons could not reasonably have interpreted the representations such as “one day this will all be yours” as meaning they would inherit the Farm directly from Mary after her death. It was much more likely Mary hoped her grandsons would keep farming, and had meant they would one day inherit the Farm, through their mother and Aunt.  

The Judge’s findings here appear to tighten the concept of “assurances” and raise the bar as to how much clarity there must be for assurances to be immutable and unequivocal. 

Reliance: is there a causal link?

On reliance, the Court looked for a genuine causal connection between the alleged assurances and the Claimant’s life choices which amount to detriment.  

The Claimants put forward in evidence that they relied on Mary’s promises and as a result lived and worked on the Farm from a very young age, foregoing travel and career opportunities. They also argued that they received no real remuneration from the Partnership for its first two years.  

However, the Judge found that the Claimants did not rely on the alleged assurances in the way they argued. For instance, the Claimants continued to work and live on the Farm even after they had found out that Mary had changed her mind on leaving the Farm to them through the 2016 Codicil. Steven also accepted in cross-examination that he would have entered the Farming Partnership in any event and would have continued to help his grandmother regardless of whether he would inherit the Farm.  

The Judge held that on the balance of probabilities there were not sufficiently clear assurances from Mary and even if there had been, the Claimants had not relied on them. Participating in the family business alone was not sufficient to show reliance and the Claimant’s evidence ultimately led the Judge to conclude that they would have acted in the same way regardless of the assurances.  

Detriment: benefits in the round will be taken into account  

Although not strictly necessary given the findings on assurance and reliance, the Court addressed detriment and found John and Steven’s detriment “nowhere near the scale of the typical case.”  

While the Claimants had worked on the Farm all their lives, they had lived there with free board and lodging and household expenses covered. They also received measurable financial benefits, including drawings under the Partnership, and numerous cash gifts from Mary.

The Court also flagged that this case differs from a more common proprietary estoppel claim bought by a “first generation” claimant - a son or daughter of the promisor. In those cases, the claimant commonly argues that they have devoted most of their working life to the farm for low wages, and receiving limited benefits, for which they also gave up the opportunity to pursue alternative careers. In this case, the Claimants were second generation, the promisor’s grandsons, and comparatively young, being in their 30s / 40s. They did work on the Farm but not exclusively - they farmed their father’s farm too, they had therefore not, in the Judge’s view, devoted their whole working lives to the Farm based on their grandmother’s promise. In fact, they spent most of their time working on their father’s Farm.  

Ultimately, the Judge held that “the Claimants have come nowhere near showing that they have suffered any sort of significant net detriment. In fact, they and their family, will have benefitted from the arrangements set up by the Partnership.”  

Therefore, the Claimants failed to satisfy the element of detriment too, the Judgment indicating that non-financial disadvantages will be weighed up against financial benefits. 

As the 3 core elements of proprietary estoppel had not been proved on the balance of probabilities, it followed that the Judge did not find that it would be unconscionable for Mary’s alleged promise not to be kept either wholly or in part.

What about Sheila’s Counterclaim?

Under the Partnership Agreement entered into in 2015, John and Steven had agreed to give vacant possession of the Farm 12 months after Mary’s death. Yet, John and Steven continued to occupy the Farm 5 years on from Mary’s death, along with their mother Ruth and father Peter.  

Sheila, as executor of Mary’s estate, bought a counterclaim against Steven and John seeking possession of the Farm. Sheila was successful in this counterclaim as the Judge found that the terms of the Partnership Agreement were clear and enforceable. As a result, the Claimants were liable for Mesne profits - payment for use and occupation of the Farm which broadly aligned with the rental value of the Farm from March 2021 plus interest, with Ruth and her husband being liable for the rental income of the Cottages on the Farm where they resided.  

Undue Influence

The Claimants argued that in the alternative to their proprietary estoppel claim, Mary had been unduly influenced by Sheila and her solicitor to revert to her 2006 Will which left the Farm to Mary and Sheila.

To prove undue influence, it must be shown that someone has actively coerced the testator into writing their will a certain way. Persuasion will not be sufficient to prove undue influence.  

The Court dealt briskly with the Claimant’s undue influence allegation finding that there was no evidence that Sheila, or Mary’s solicitor had coerced or influenced her in any way to signing the 2016 Codicil, as shown in the solicitor’s attendance notes. The Judge found that Mary was fully aware of the effect of the Codicil and there were sound reasons behind her decision. The solicitor did not seek to influence her in any way.  

The Judge criticised the decision to pursue this line of argument on such scant evidence and gave these allegations short shrift, stating that the “allegation was half-heartedly pursued by Counsel”. This underscores the seriousness of such allegations and that they should not be used as a fall-back claim but require sound evidence.  

Other probate claims

The other claims, want of knowledge and approval and lack of capacity, were addressed equally decisively, again lacking evidence and ultimately failing.

Takeaways  

For would-be claimants, Maile is a reminder that proprietary estoppel is not a vehicle for reversing disappointed expectations. Assurances must be unequivocal, immutable and supported by strong evidence. Vague statements of family intention, particularly where they sit uneasily alongside formal testamentary documents or partnership arrangements, will rarely suffice.

Detriment remains a fact-sensitive inquiry with courts taking a broad view of benefits received, including accommodation and living costs, drawings and gifts, before concluding that equity demands relief.  

The decision also underscores that allegations of undue influence are serious allegations and demand compelling proof demonstrating more than mere persuasion; the evidence must establish coercion.

For potential claimants, the priority is to ground their proprietary estoppel case in clear, consistent assurances and a coherent causal account of reliance and net detriment, while carefully assessing whether there is robust evidence to support any undue influence or other claim. Pleading widely in an effort to hedge bets is risky and vulnerable to criticism.

For families, especially those who consider that they might need to defend a future claim, prevention is better (and substantially cheaper) than cure. Succession planning can involve some cost - but it’s a sound investment in the family’s future and the cost pales into insignificance when compared to the cost of a High Court trial. Maile was a ten day trial, which isn’t out of the ordinary for a case of this type.

How can we help?

If you’re keen to make succession plans to avoid the risk of future contention, want to understand how your property is held or are concerned about a future or current proprietary estoppel claim (or other dispute) the team of agricultural and landed estate lawyers here at Charles Russell Speechlys, including contentious and non-contentious specialists, would be happy to help.

Field Notes is Charles Russell Speechlys’ weekly agricultural law blog, sharing plain-English insight into the legal and policy issues affecting agriculture, agricultural land and rural business life. From hints and tips on avoiding agricultural disputes, pitfalls to keep an eye out when planning for tenancy or family agri-business succession, to the latest agricultural legislative or policy changes and the most interesting farm-related court decisions, Field Notes makes the complex more understandable, always grounded in the realities of life on (and off) the land.

Field Notes comes out every Wednesday. Previous editions of Field Notes include:

• Family farm and the family firm: When sibling rivalry becomes unfair prejudice
• Fireworks, livestock, and liability: what risks and duties do farmers and event organisers need to be aware of? 
• Old Michaelmas: Where Folklore Meets Fields, Fairs and Fine Print
• Planting Trees Today for Tomorrow’s Farms: New guidance, what a "Mast Year" is and why that matters in 2025
• Beyond Downton Abbey: the legal issues facing modern Landed Estates