In the case of Cleave & Cleave v Cleave [2024] EWHC 2492 (Ch) a dispute arose between a mother and her son and daughter-in-law in relation to a farm in Devon which was owned by the mother who, following a fall out, changed her will to exclude her son and his wife who then brought a claim based on proprietary estoppel.
One part of the farm was subject to a discretionary deed of trust under which the Claimants were the beneficiaries. The mother (Mary) signed the deed of trust and TP1 relating to the same in 2022. However, she alleged the documents were not properly witnessed or should be set aside on grounds of undue influence and/or unconscionable bargain. The Claimants argued they were entered into of her own free will after obtaining legal advice.
The son made a claim of proprietary estoppel in relation to this land, and also in relation to the rest of the farm, saying he committed his working life to working on the farm for low pay relying on his parents' assurances that he would inherit it.
Mary alleged that the Claimants were abusive towards her and pressed her to sign the deed of trust and TP1. She argued they were not properly attested, that she signed both not knowing what they were and while acting under undue influence.
The court relied heavily on the evidence of the professional witnesses (accountants and solicitors involved in the transactions) and was satisfied that Mary knew and fully understood what the plans were and how they were to be achieved. Mary's evidence was contradictory, and the court viewed her as a strong person with strong views who would not be persuaded from her chosen course.
The son and daughter-in-law on the other hand were considered measured and thoughtful witnesses, and their accounts were supported by other evidence. There was no evidence Mary was misled at any point and the claim for duress / unconscionable bargain failed.
For a proprietary estoppel argument to succeed there must be representation, reliance and detriment, in which case an equity arises and the court will grant an appropriate remedy. Here, the court accepted the son's evidence and the claim for proprietary estoppel succeeded.
The court concluded that while the deed of trust was validly executed, the TP1 was not and so was not effective to transfer the trust land. However, Mary had intended it to be transferred, and the son had not acted nefariously (despite getting Mary's signature witnessed after the event and without her present), and it was therefore held that the trust was properly formulated, and the trust land was held by Mary on the terms of the trust deed.
This case highlights the importance of witness evidence, and especially the weight attributed to professional witnesses.
