Winter vs Winter

This case involved a dispute among family members over proprietary estoppel claims related to their family business and property assets.

TLDR:

• Richard and Adrian Winter claimed proprietary estoppel over family business assets.
• The High Court ruled in their favor, finding they had relied on assurances from their parents.
• Philip Winter appealed, challenging the finding of detriment.
• The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision.

The claimants, Richard and Adrian Winter, and the first defendant, Philip Winter, are the sons of Albert and Brenda Winter. In a judgment dated 29 September 2023, Zacaroli J found in favor of the claimants on a proprietary estoppel claim related to property in Albert's estate. Philip appealed this decision.

Albert and Brenda bought Bower Farm in 1964 and ran a market garden business. Their sons helped on the farm and eventually worked there full-time. The farm was transferred into Albert and Brenda's names in 1988, and a partnership was formed to run the business. Brenda's interest passed to her sons upon her death in 2001.

Albert wished for each son to have a farm, leading to the acquisition of additional farms. The business was later transferred to a company, with the sons holding equal shares. Despite this, Albert retained control until around 2014. The sons received modest payments for their work, with profits reinvested in the business.

Relations deteriorated around 2013-2014, and financial difficulties led to Richard assuming control of the business. Larger salaries and dividends were approved, and significant pension contributions were made for the sons.

Albert's will left his estate to Philip, leading to the cessation of the business and sale of assets. The High Court found that Albert and Brenda had assured their sons that the business would be left to them equally, and Richard and Adrian had relied on these assurances to their detriment.

The appeal focused on the finding of detriment. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision, agreeing that Richard and Adrian had suffered detriment by committing their working lives to the family business based on their parents' assurances.

Legal representatives: Alex Troup KC (instructed by Ashfords LLP) for the Appellant, Hugh Sims KC and Michael Selway (instructed by Berensens Solicitors) for the Claimant Respondents.

Judicial Panel: Lord Justice Moylan, Lord Justice Newey, and Lady Justice Falk.

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWCA Civ 699