Testing the strength of promises: Lessons from Armstrong

On 1 August 2025, the High Court handed down its judgment on remedy in the case of Armstrong v Armstrong and Another [2025], further to its ruling on liability provided on 22 November 2024. The case serves as an important reminder of the difficulties faced by farming families when estate planning.

Background

Alan and Margaret Armstrong ran a family farming business and owned two farms, North Cowton and Allerton Grange, worth a combined total of around £5.5m. They had 5 children together, including Richard and Simon. Both Richard and Simon began working in the family farming business from a young age, with Richard working at North Cowton and Simon working at Allerton Grange. 

The family relationship became fractious due to a number of disputes over the years, including disagreements between Richard and Simon, and several altercations between Richard’s son and other family members. The farming partnership was split in 2017 amid tensions over financial losses suffered by the business, with Richard assuming responsibility for debts of around £500,000 related to North Cowton.

Margaret died in 2018 and in 2019 Richard agreed to a deed of variation, surrendering his £1.79m interest in Margaret’s estate to Alan based on the promise that he would ultimately inherit North Cowton. However, in January 2020 Alan executed a new will after providing verbal instructions, cutting Richard out completely due to their poor relationship and leaving North Cowton to Simon’s son, George. This was contrary to the letter of instruction produced by Alan only a couple of months earlier in November 2019 directing that North Cowton should pass to Richard. Alan later died in October 2020.

Richard brought a claim against Simon and George as the executors and beneficiaries of Alan’s estate on the basis of proprietary estoppel. In the alternative, Richard sought reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

Decision

Proprietary estoppel 

To establish grounds for proprietary estoppel, the Court had to answer four questions:

1. Were the promises made by Alan to Richard sufficiently clear to support a claim for proprietary estoppel? Yes. Alan had made repeated promises over a period of 30 years to Richard that he would inherit North Cowton. It was clear that these were intended to be binding as Alan had repeated such intentions in his letter of instruction for his 2020 will and during meetings with Richard – including giving Richard an encouraging look when Richard was asked if he trusted his father before signing the deed of variation, hinting that he would inherit North Cowton in return.
   
   
2. Did Richard reasonably rely on the promises to his detriment? Yes. Richard had chosen to study agriculture instead of engineering, hindering his career prospects, on the basis that he would inherit North Cowton. Furthermore, he had worked at North Cowton in return for a modest income, assumed responsibility for the £500,000 debt and surrendered his entitlement to Margaret’s estate.
   
   
3. Did Alan renege on his promises and, if so, was it unconscionable for him to do so? Yes. Alan reneged on his promises by making the 2020 will just before his death. This decision was unconscionable as the provisions of the 2020 will were contrary to the consistent promises he'd made. In reliance on the promises, Richard had irretrievably altered his position in life.
   
   
4. Did Richard receive countervailing benefits and, if so, did they affect the remedy to which he was entitled? No. Although Richard had enjoyed rent-free occupation of the farm and a modest income, the detriment that he'd suffered was far greater, particularly due to the inheritance he surrendered under the 2019 deed of variation.

The Court held that Richard was entitled to inherit North Cowton on the basis of proprietary estoppel and that the charge held by the bank to secure lending for the benefit of both farms should be apportioned between the two farms.

The 1975 Act

To establish grounds for the 1975 Act claim, the Court had to answer two questions:

1. Was Richard financially dependent on Alan? Yes. Alan had allowed Richard to live and work on North Cowton for 34 years so had provided for both his income and housing needs.
   
   
2. Did Alan’s will fail to make reasonable financial provision for Richard and, if so, what would be reasonable financial provision? Yes. Alan had not made any financial provision for Richard in his will and, as Richard was financially dependent on Alan, this could not be reasonable. The Court established that Richard should be entitled to £650,000 to reflect both his income and housing needs.

The Court held that if its award under proprietary estoppel was wrong and overturned on appeal, Richard was entitled in the alternative to the sum of £650,000 under the 1975 Act. If the proprietary estoppel claim wasn't overturned, then the award of North Cowton farm was reasonable financial provision and no further sum was required under the 1975 Act claim.

Key points

• Promises should be evidenced – even if promises have been made persistently, if they aren't documented this can lead to costly and time-consuming litigation. Therefore, any promises made in relation to succession should be clearly minuted or recorded.
• Evidence of promises can be subtle – the Court can accept subtle assurances such as body language as evidence of a promise where, in the circumstances, it's reasonable to believe they were suggestive of the promisor’s intention.
• The importance of clear planning – it's important to have clear discussions around estate planning to help clarify potential entitlement and avoid later disputes.
• Family dynamics can be difficult to predict and can disrupt estate planning – the case is a significant example of how disputes within families can disrupt the succession of estates, even where clear planning has already been made. Where such disputes arise, legal advice should be sought as soon as possible from specialists in the area.