Farming inheritance dispute illustrates legal principles and risks

Following a 10-day trial costing each side an estimated £350,000, the Honourable Mr Justice Michael Green said in his judgment:

“It is unfortunate to say the least that this case has had to come to trial and could not be settled out of court.

“Surely it should have been possible for the huge amounts of money spent on this litigation to have been put to better use by doing what the deceased always wanted her family to do, which was to ensure a fair split of her estate.”

See also: How careful planning can reduce the risk of a challenge to your will

Over the course of the trial, as well as hearing from witnesses on both sides, there was expert evidence on valuation, forensic accounting, forgery and testamentary capacity.

Broken promise claim

The judgment in the case of Maile & Anor v Maile & Ors rejected a proprietary estoppel, or broken promise, claim by the grandsons of Mary Stevens.

She had farmed the 69ha West Hook Farm near Okehampton, Devon, originally with her husband, who died in 2001.

It also rejected probate claims made on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, that Mary had lacked knowledge and approval of the contents of her will and codicils, and/or that she had been subject to undue influence.

Mary had two daughters, Ruth Maile and Sheila Kempthorne, to whom she had left the farm in her will, made in 2006, as part of the residue of her estate.

The farm’s live and deadstock was left in that will to her grandsons, Steven and John Maile, who from 2015 farmed in partnership with their grandmother.

Separately, they also farmed in partnership with their father Peter Maile on a neighbouring holding owned by Peter.

Mary, who also left £10,000 each to her two granddaughters, lived at West Hook Farm with Ruth, Steven, John and Peter.

The Maile family continued to occupy the farmhouse and farm after Mary’s death in March 2020, at 96 years old.

In a codicil in 2011, Mary had altered her will so that her grandsons would inherit West Hook Farm.

Subsequently, a further codicil in 2016 restored the terms of her 2006 will so that Ruth and Sheila inherited the farm, with the grandsons still entitled to the live and deadstock.

A third codicil in 2017 left a field known as Hook Meadow to Sheila.

Ruth and Sheila were nominated Mary’s executors, with Sheila accepting the nomination and Ruth declining. A grant of probate for Mary’s estate was obtained by Sheila in July 2021.

Partnership

The partnership between Mary, Steven and John began in 2015 and was set up for inheritance tax (IHT) purposes.

The partnership agreement included an option for Steven and John to have the option to buy the farm from the estate, giving them five years to pay for it.

The agreement also contained a provision requiring vacant possession to be given for the farm 12 months after Mary’s death.

The claim

Shortly after the grant of probate for Mary’s estate was issued, Steven and John issued a letter of claim though their solicitor.

They claimed that they had been promised the farm throughout their lifetime by Mary, that they had relied on those promises to their detriment and were therefore entitled to ownership of the farm through proprietary estoppel.

This is a legal remedy to ensure fairness when promises about inheriting land or property are broken.

Steven and John alleged that Mary had made clear and unequivocal repeated representations or assurances that they would inherit the farm after her death and that she had made those assurances from when they were very young.

The judge did not accept this, finding no clear and unequivocal representations that Mary would be leaving the farm to her grandsons in her will. As a result, the proprietary estoppel claim fell at the first test.

However, the judge made findings on other elements of that claim, including that Steven and John had not managed to prove that they were worse off as a result of their reliance on their grandmother’s alleged assurances in relation to the farm.

“The claimant’s case that they received limited drawings and no other benefits is plainly not made out,” stated the judgment.

“They received substantial sums over the years from the deceased and the partnership.”

The case came to trial in early July 2025. At the time the claim was issued, the grandsons were in their 30s.

“The claimants are still young and have not spent ‘the best part of’ their working lives in reliance on the alleged promise…it seems to me that the only period that they could be said to have been relying on any such promise was from the time of the 2011 codicil to its revocation by the 2016 codicil,” said the judgment.

Partnership can affect estoppel claim

Adam Corbin, part of the team from law firm Michelmores, which represented Sheila, says:

“The fact that Steven and John were made partners of the partnership in 2014 meant they had effectively ‘contracted out’ of an estoppel by entering into an agreement that gave them the ability to farm the farm, take a profit share – by the time of death their share had been increased to 80% – and the option to acquire Mary’s share in the partnership on her death.”

Commenting on the relatively young ages of Steven and John, Adam says:

“This is different to many traditional cases where the person relying on the promise has committed their entire life to the farm and by the time they realise they are not getting it, are often older in age.”

He added that it is quite difficult to run an estoppel case alongside a capacity case, and that many tools can be used to put in place to prevent situations such as the Maile case arising.

“These include well-drafted partnership agreements and family constitutions, and they are not expensive,” he says.

Testamentary capacity

The bases of Steven and John’s claim also included that Mary had lacked the testamentary capacity to make the 2016 and 2017 codicils, and that these should be set aside as a result of undue influence against Mary by Sheila and/or Mary’s solicitor.

It was also claimed that Mary had lacked knowledge and approval of the contents of the 2016 and 2017 codicils. These were all rejected.

Experts on the issue of testamentary capacity from both sides agreed there was nothing in Mary’s medical records or the solicitor’s files to show Mary lacked capacity.

The judge was critical of the undue influence claim, stating:

“…I find it extraordinary that such an allegation was made and pursued against a solicitor who did not stand to gain from the deceased’s will, nor was he pressing for one side of the family to benefit over the other.” 

Undue influence should only be alleged if there is a credible basis for doing so in the evidence, he said in the judgment.

Solicitor’s notes

The file notes made by Mary’s solicitor, who advised her on the changes to her will, contributed important evidence on this and other aspects of the case. 

The claimants Steven and John Maile were advised by law firm Stephens Scown, which said that this type of case is flexible, fact sensitive and aimed at preventing injustice.

“Claims of this nature are not limited to disputes between children and their parents, or their estates,” said the firm.

“It is common for cases to be brought by children (the “first generation”), however, claims can also be brought by second-generation family members (such as grandchildren), extended relatives, friends, neighbours and even business associates.

“Anyone who can establish that there have been promises or assurances, reliance and detriment, can seek remedies from the court to enforce those promises.

“It is the conduct, the expectations and the reliance which are the key elements of these types of case.

“Steven and John Maile had a legitimate claim against the estate of their late grandmother, Mary Stevens.

“The claim was brought against a backdrop of what they considered promises made to them that they would inherit West Hook Farm on her death.

“In 2014 they were encouraged to enter a farming partnership with their grandmother, and to increase their work at West Hook Farm to save £400,000 of inheritance tax.  

“Steven and John committed their lives to their grandmother and her farm, based on the promises made to them by Mary.

“The judge, however, reached a different conclusion on the evidence presented to him. Our clients were deeply saddened with the decision made by the High Court but accept the finality of the judgment.”