News

“Careless Talk Costs Livestock? Lessons for Cohabitees” by Tony Roe.
3 December 2009 :: Newbury Business Today

The principles on which cohabitees are forced to rely may seem a long way from a farming dispute. However, the historic rules of trusts and equity employed in each sort of case are just the same.

The House of Lords, as it was before becoming the Supreme Court in October 2009, gave judgment in a case involving a Somerset farm which turned on assurances made by the owner to his cousin. The cousin, David Thorner, worked unpaid for 29 years on Steart farm for the owner, Peter Thorner, who died intestate. David claimed that he had relied, to his detriment, on assurances made to him by Peter, a principle known as “proprietary estoppel”, and that Peter’s estate was bound by this.

The trial judge found that Peter had made remarks in conversation which carried with them the implication that David was to have a continuing long-term involvement with the farm. David was at his beck and call, working 18 hours a day, seven days a week. David’s “hope became an expectation” in 1990, when Peter gave him a life insurance bonus notice, saying, “That’s for my death duties”, indicating to him that he would be his successor.

The Lords noted that this case involved “taciturn and undemonstrative men”. Indeed, Peter was a man of few words with literacy problems and David had dealt with the farm’s movement records and other paperwork. The court held that it was sufficient to establish that David reasonably understood the statement or action to be an assurance on which he could rely. The House of Lords restored the order of the trial judge. As a result, David received the land, some 580 acres, buildings, live and dead stock and other assets, including £24,000 in the business’ current account.

Those within a marriage or a civil partnership have specific legal rights. Cohabitees don’t. Cohabiting couple are in no better position than two friends or relatives sharing a home. They have to rely on complex, historic rules of equity and trusts. So, how has this particular equitable principle of proprietary estoppel worked in cases involving unmarried couples? Reported cases contain examples of the sort of encouragement and detriment required to give an equitable interest, for example:

• one party persuading the other to build on land;
• a cohabitee spending money on repairs and decoration relying on her former partner’s assurances that the property was hers;
• a woman giving up her flat, nationality and career after her partner assured her that she would have a home for life.

It would be wrong to think that one should watch every word one says, whether living with a partner or running the family farm. The courts would not be impressed by a throwaway comment but if there was something approaching one of these examples, the situation might be rather different. Circumstances clearly alter cases and specialist legal advice should be obtained.

News Index