Court overturns father’s will so son can inherit family farm as promised

A High Court judge has ordered that a farming estate be transferred from the estate of a deceased father to his son, overturning the will in favour of the son’s claim that he had been promised the family farm by his parents.

Mr Justice Andrew Sutcliffe KC, sitting in the Business and Property Courts has ruled that, while the father’s 2020 will attempted to distribute his estate differently, that will repudiated earlier clear assurances made to his younger son that he would inherit the farm known as North Cowton.

The case – brought by the younger son, Richard Gordon Armstrong, against his brother, Simon James Armstrong, and another family member as administrators of their father’s estate – hinged on what are known as proprietary estoppel claims.

The judge found Richard had worked on and looked after the farm for 34 years in reliance on repeated promises by his father, and that his father’s conduct in later changing the will was unconscionable.

In his judgment, the judge described the promises as causing a “reasonable expectation” that Richard would succeed to North Cowton and found Richard had suffered “substantial net detriment” by giving up other opportunities in reliance on those promises.

On remedy the judge held that the correct approach was to hold the father’s estate to the original promise — namely that North Cowton be transferred to Richard — but not unconditionally free of all debt. The farm was valued at about £3.128 million and the court directed that Richard assume approximately 50.81 % of the combined debts of the two connected farming units, resulting in a net value to Richard of about £1.75 million.

By contrast the older brother and the estate would receive the other farm (Allerton Grange and associated land) and assume some 49.19 % of the debts, producing a net value of about £1.3 million.

The judgment also declared that a third parcel of land (Marton land) belonged to the defendants and not to Richard, and emphasised that the brothers needed a “clean break” so neither remained dependent on the other.

The ruling underscores the obligations of estates and executors when longstanding assurances have been relied upon and the need for fairness in splitting complex family and farming assets.

Please contact us if you would like more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of wills and probate.