St John Webster v Ashcroft
Script error: No such module "AfC submission catcheck".
| St John Webster v Ashcroft | |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court |
| Full case name | St John Webster (Claimant) v Ashcroft and others (Defendants) |
| Decided | 22/05/2013 |
| Citation(s) | [2013] EWHC 1316 (Ch) |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | HHJ Purle QC, Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Lewison, Lord Justice Floyd |
| Keywords | |
| Proprietary estoppel | |
St John Webster v Ashcroft [2013] EWHC 1316 is an English land law case, concerning proprietary estoppel.
Facts[edit]
On Antony St John Webster's farm, Taunton, Somerset, Valentine, Antony's eldest son, retired from the UK Royal Navy, to work with the farm, where he got housing. He worked long hours and expected to inherit some of the farm, encouraged by his parents. Who also had 3 other children. To manage UK Inheritance tax, Antony was advised by Bevirs Solicitors to put his farmhouse in trust, and put 4 or 5 farm cottages and farmland in a settlement. He did so keeping 2 fields with the trust. On review with his long employed solicitors, Penleys, Antony entitled his son, Valentine, and grandson, Rupert, to life interests in the trust, with his other children to benefit from the settlement, and from a property deal between the trust and the settlement to buy out the remainder. Penleys later advised that life interests cause unnecessary death tax but there could be a property deal between the trust and the settlement. Nothing was legally carried out. Instead, Valentine was appointed an administrator for his mother, Valerie, intending that he inherit the trust. 10 years went by until Valentine began to suffer Motor neuron disease. He was removed as his mother's administrator and replaced by his sister, Mrs Ashcroft, and Mr Penley, of Penleys. Penleys later reported a substantial tax liability against the trust. Mrs Ashcroft applied to court for an order that Rupert bring legal action. Rupert claimed Proprietary estoppel.
The High Court[1] (Purle HHJ, Charles Purle) held there was no proprietary estoppel claim because there was no detrimental reliance.
The Court of Appeal[2] (Lewison LJ, Kim Lewison) and [3] (Floyd LJ, Christopher Floyd) refused permission to appeal.
Judgment[edit]
36. Valentine and Jennifer also expended money and effort connected with their living at the farmhouse and (initially) working the farm, though the farmland has for the most part been tenanted. This is summarised in part in a letter Jennifer put before me of 11 February 2013. The expenditure smacks of the sort of expenditure someone living rent free (as Valentine and Jennifer did) would bear, and mutual family support. The same can be said of fencing works Valentine appears to have undertaken. One of the fields was worked by Valentine and Jennifer in connection with the trees business for Taunton Trees Limited, which was carried on for their benefit. Valentine also bred pigs and the like, again for his own benefit, though this business, as well as ruining much of the grass around the farmhouse, generated much hostility locally, not least from Jennifer. I did not gain the impression that any of Valentine's business activities were conspicuously successful at this or any other time. I think he probably had trouble adjusting to civilian life after his naval career. None of this activity indicates to me that Valentine or Jennifer were to have an interest in the farmhouse and two fields, and I regard none of it as detrimental reliance even if there were some underlying promise or representation which has eluded me.
See also[edit]
Notes[edit]
External links[edit]
This article "St John Webster v Ashcroft" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:St John Webster v Ashcroft. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.
