BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Vasami & Anor v Hack & Anor [2023] EWHC 2431 (Ch) (05 October 2023) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2023/2431.html Cite as: [2023] EWHC 2431 (Ch) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS IN WALES
PROPERTY TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST (ChD)
Caravella House, Quay West, Swansea SA1 1SP |
||
B e f o r e :
Sitting as a judge of the High Court
____________________
LUIGI NICODEMO VASAMI GRAZIA VASAMI |
Claimants |
|
- and - |
||
TONY HACK ARLENE HACK |
Defendants |
____________________
Mr Christopher Jones (instructed by Harrison Clark Rickerby Ltd) for the defendants
Hearing dates: 18-20 September 2023
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
HHJ JARMAN KC:
Introduction
Background
Breakdown of the relationship and subsequent correspondence
"We would confirm that we have been instructed to enter into discussions and would respectfully suggest the following:-
1. That we agree to obtain three valuations from local land agents/surveyors to ascertain the value of the property. Two have been obtained from Evan Bros and Mr Rodney Powell.
2. That it is accepted that in terms of these valuations that it should reflect our client's position as sitting tenants.
3. That the valuation also considers the investments made by our client and also promises made as to the ownership of the property to Mr Hack since they have been in occupation and tenants since 1988."
"Your client confirmed that our client was to have a lifetime security of tenure. This was confirmed to friends and family and in the Welsh language TV programme "cefn gwlad" who made a programme regarding your client. Our client undertook a number of major long term improvements and short term improvements as a result. They implemented farming practice and a system of dairy farming which benefited the farm. Our client would be entitled to substantial compensation."
"On i'n fermio cyn agor y restaurant, well oedd ffarm da fi yn Glasfryn, ond fi wedi pasio hwnna nawr i Tony achos fi wedi cael digon o ffermio i ddweud y gwir."
"I was farming before opening the restaurant, well I had a farm in Glasfryn, but I have passed that now to Tony because I have had enough of farming to tell the truth."
"Please note that what we state in this email reply is without prejudice to the primary contention that our client has an ownership interest in the farm by virtue of the equitable principle of proprietary estoppel."
These proceedings
Proprietary estoppel-promises
"Two legal rules are engaged here. The first is that a promise is not enforceable unless it is made part of a contract. The second is that a person is free to change his will until he dies (or loses mental capacity to do so). David was, in accordance with those rules both free to renege upon his promise to Andrew, and to do so both by evicting him and then changing his will. But equity may in such circumstances provide the promisee (here Andrew) with a remedy if a promise has been made to confer property upon him in the future, (or an informal assurance that the property is already his) in reliance upon which he has acted to his detriment. The remedy is called proprietary estoppel. The word "proprietary" reflects the fact that the remedy is all about promises to confer interests in property, usually land. The perhaps quaint word "estoppel" encapsulates the notion that the equitable wrong which has been threatened or done is the repudiation of the promise where it would be unconscionable for the promisor to do. So the equitable remedy is to restrain, or stop or "estop" the promisor from reneging on the promise."
"Even when the promises or assurance is in terms linked to the making of a will, the circumstances may make clear that the assurance is more than a mere statement of present (revocable) intention, and is tantamount to a promise."
Detrimental reliance
"The equitable "wrong" (if that is the right word) is not the making of the promise in the first place. In almost all the cases, and certainly this one, the promise was genuinely made, in complete good faith, typical of the relations between a farmer and his eldest son, and it was adhered to over more than 25 years. Nor is the detrimental reliance to be classified as harm in any conventional sense. It is usually (and was in this case) something freely and willingly undertaken in the expectation of the fulfilment of the promise, not being daily counted as a cost, still less resented at the time when it was being incurred. Nor is it something which can necessarily or even usually be valued. In the present case, as in many where the promisee is a young person who gives up other career opportunities to work for their parents on the family farm, a measure of the supposed wages differential to date, coupled with interest, will not begin to recognise the improvement in life which further education, an independent career and the opportunities to develop their own farming or other business might have generated. A modest home, bought on an 80% LTV mortgage twenty-five years ago could itself now be worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, because of the meteoric rise in property prices.
10. Nonetheless the detriment is relevant to both the arising of the equity and to the remedy. Without reliant detriment there is simply no equity at all. This reflects the notion that it is the reliant detriment which makes it unconscionable for the promisor to go back on his promise."
Unconscionable conduct
Arrears of rent
Ownership of the dairy herd
Conclusions