Armstrong v Armstrong: A High Court Ruling Shaping Contentious Probate and Proprietary Estoppel Claims

The case centres around the doctrine of “proprietary estoppel”.

A proprietary estoppel claim arises when:

1. A promise/assurance is made in relation to specific land or property;
2. The Claimant must have relied on that promise;
3. Reliance on the promise has caused the Claimant to suffer detriment.
4. The promise is broken.

Where all elements of the claim are proved, the Court will decide if it is unconscionable for the promisor to go back on their promise and, if so, what remedy should be provided to the Claimant.

The case involved the estate of the late Alan Armstong. Alan and his wife, Margaret, were from farming families and bought two farms in North Yorkshire during their marriage, “Allerton Grange Farm” and “North Cowton Grange Farm”.

Margaret died in 2018 and Alan died in 2020, leaving five children. Two of their sons, Simon and Richard, had worked on the farms since they were teenagers.

Richard worked primarily at North Cowton and lived there with his wife and children at the farmhouse. Simon primarily worked at Allerton Grange and lived in a separate property nearby.

There had been tensions between Simon and Richard for many years, and steps had been taken to separate the day-to-day operations of the two farms to avoid conflict.

Further difficulties arose in later years when Richard’s son, Thomas, began working at North Cowton.

Thomas had difficult relationships with both Simon and Alan.

In 2020, Alan visited a solicitor and changed his Will to leave Allerton Grange to Simon and North Cowton to Simon’s son, George. Richard did not receive any provision under the Will. Richard brought a Proprietary Estoppel claim against Alan’s estate.

Whilst early and clear discussions within agricultural families about succession planning are the most reliable method of avoiding disputes, such as Armstrong, there are numerous reasons why this often does not happen, such as family dynamics and relationships. 

The effect is that individuals need to turn to litigation for a remedy.

If you find yourself in a position similar to Richard Armstrong's, it is crucial to seek advice from an expert as soon as possible.