Lucy Ann Andrews Habberfield v Jane Sarah Andrews Habberfield
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Birss |
| Judgment Date | 23 February 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 317 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: C3BS914 / C30BS666 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 23 February 2018 |
[2018] EWHC 317 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS IN BRISTOL
PROPERTY TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST
Bristol Civil Justice Centre
2 Redcliff Street
Bristol BS1 6GR
The Hon. Mr Justice Birss
Case No: C3BS914 / C30BS666
Leslie Blohm QC (instructed by Stephens Scown) for the Claimant
Richard Wilson QC (instructed by Wilsons) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 17th, 18th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th January 2018
Judgment Approved
Contents
| Topic | Paragraphs |
| Introduction | 1 |
| The witnesses | 9 |
| The dealings with Mr Robinson | 21 |
| The law | 47 |
| 1980s to late 1990s — Restarting dairy farming at Woodrow | 53 |
| The representations relied on (first batch) | 63 |
| The work of the others on the farm | 107 |
| Detriment – Lucy's hours and her pay | 114 |
| 1998 until 2007 – Lucy and Stuart | 125 |
| Events in 2007–2008 – the offer to Lucy | 158 |
| 2008 to 2013 – from the offer to the fight in the milking parlour | 179 |
| 2013 to the present | 200 |
| Has an equity arisen? | 206 |
| What relief is appropriate? | 222 |
| Value and viability of Woodrow | 231 |
| Quantifiable part of detrimental reliance | 238 |
| Decision | 247 |
| The Inheritance Act claim | 259 |
| Conclusion | 261 |
| Annex 1 |
Introduction
This is an action about a family farm called Woodrow which is close to Yeovil in Somerset. The claimant Lucy Habberfield is one of four children of the defendant Mrs Jane Habberfield and her late husband Mr Frank Habberfield. I will refer to the various individuals in this case by their given names without meaning any disrespect to them. Frank was born in 1930 and Jane was born in 1936. They married in 1957. Woodrow Farm was purchased in 1961. Initially farmed by a partnership of Frank and his two brothers, in 1975 the farm was transferred to Frank and Jane. From then on the farming business was a partnership between Frank and Jane. Lucy has three older siblings: Emily (generally referred to as Emma), Andrew and Sarah.
Today Woodrow Farm as a whole includes further land, in particular 104 acres of land at Mudford which was bought in 1989. The total acreage is now about 220 acres. The holding, including the business and all the land and buildings including the farm house, is worth about £2 1/2 million. Unless it is necessary to draw the distinction, from now on I will refer to the whole farm including the land at Mudford as Woodrow.
Lucy claims to be entitled to the whole farm or to such lesser share of it as the court thinks fit. The claim is brought based on proprietary estoppel and alternatively as a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Jane denies the claim in its entirety.
Lucy's case that she devoted her working life to the farm because her father assured her that she would eventually take it over when he retired. Lucy was born in 1967. She started full time work at the farm in the early 1980s when she left school. Her particular focus was the dairy herd and dairy farming. In 1998 she met her partner Stuart Parker and in 1999 the couple moved into a house called Bryony about 1/2 mile from Woodrow. Their eldest child Tom was born in 1999 and they have four children. Lucy continued to work at Woodrow when she had a young family and was helped by Stuart, who had a full time job on another farm. In 2007 he left that other job and worked full time at Woodrow. Lucy left Woodrow in 2013 following a fight in the milking parlour with her sister Sarah.
Jane's case is that no such assurance or promises were made. She did not make any and denies that Frank did either; but even if he did, Jane was not aware of it and cannot be bound by them. In any event even if the assurances alleged are proved, they are insufficient to found a basis for proprietary estoppel. Detriment is denied on the basis that Lucy has exaggerated her work on the farm and her contribution and minimised the work by her siblings and the employees. She also received benefits such as accommodation at the farm before she moved out to live with Stuart and, after her children were born, childcare from their grandmother Jane. Causation is also denied. Even if a case is made out, it is submitted that to pass the entire farm to Lucy would be disproportionate. At best a modest cash payment would satisfy any equity established.
Frank died in April 2014. Since Frank and Jane held the property as beneficial joint tenants, that meant that from Frank's death Jane was the sole owner of Woodrow. In any case, by his will, which was made in 1998, Frank left his entire estate to Jane.
Milk production at Woodrow ceased in 2015 and since then the farm business has been based only on beef cattle and arable. The work is carried on by Sarah, her husband William Cobden and their 19 year old son James. Today James lives at Woodrow.
The Inheritance Act proceedings were commenced in August 2015 as a Part 8 claim in Exeter County Court. The claim form of the action based on proprietary estoppel was issued on 29 th June 2016. The county court action was transferred to the High Court and the two have proceeded together and been managed together. The matter came on for trial in the Bristol Civil Justice Centre starting on 17 th January 2018. Before me Lucy was represented by Mr Leslie Blohm QC instructed by Stephens Scown. Jane was represented by Mr Richard Wilson QC instructed by Wilsons.
The witnesses
The main witnesses for the claimant were Lucy herself and Stuart. I also heard evidence from further witnesses called by the claimant:
i) Neville Loder, a local dairy farmer who has known Lucy as long as he can remember.
ii) Suzanne Loder, who is married to Neville and did some relief milking at Woodrow in the mid 1990s.
iii) Marguerite Skinner, a professional hairdresser who has been Lucy's friend and hairdresser for 25 years.
iv) Robert Symms, a farmer based about 2 miles from Woodrow at Adber. His is a mixed farm. He has known Lucy and Stuart for many years. Stuart started working for him as a Saturday boy when he was 13 years old until he left in 2007 to go full time at Woodrow.
v) Jeffrey Stamp, a farm worker. He and Lucy had a relationship in the 1980s for 4 or 5 years.
vi) Rod Cherry, a nutritionist and feed supplier who dealt with Frank and Lucy regularly since the mid 1990s and got to know them well.
vii) Michele Harding, a supplier of bull semen used for artificially inseminating the dairy cows. For a period of 18 months in the mid 1990s she visited Woodrow frequently aiming to sell Lucy and Frank semen for the herd.
All of the claimant's witnesses were cross-examined. The claimant's seven further witnesses listed above were thoroughly honest and doing their best to assist the court. None of them has any reason to do other than tell the truth. That does not mean I do or should accept everything they have said as accurate, since memory is fallible and a witness's impression of what happened may be mistaken. I will address my findings about Lucy and Stuart together with the other the main family witnesses below.
The main witnesses for the defendant were Jane herself, Sarah, William and Andrew. They were cross examined. The defendant also relied on evidence from Emily and James. They were not cross-examined and their witness statements stand. Further witnesses called by the defendant were:
i) Martin Taylor, of Old Mill accountants. He and his predecessor Ian Sharpe acted as the accountants for the partnership for many years, until 2014.
ii) John Sprake, Jane's brother. He is a retired farmer based near Sherborne.
iii) Peter Gosney, a retired aircraft fitter. He knew Frank for over 55 years and worked on the farm at weekends for much of that time.
iv) Brian Brooks, a retired agricultural worker. He worked at Woodrow from 2001 until his retirement in 2013.
v) Len Parsons, a retired farmer now living in South Perrott, Dorset. He is a long standing friend of the family and helped Frank to teach Lucy dairy farming in the 1980s.
vi) Shane Buckle, he was a farm worker but now works in Beaminster. He has known both Lucy and Jane since 1995 and worked at Woodrow until 2001. His departure from Woodrow coincided with Stuart starting to do more work at Woodrow.
vii) Angela Davis, a relief milker and race horse trainer. She worked as a relief milker at Woodrow in 2010 (the date in her witness statement was corrected in chief and corrected again in cross-examination).
viii) Graham Davis, a dairyman, married to Angela. He worked as a relief milker at Woodrow (and scraped the yard) from around 2005 until 2010.
ix) Jonathan Cabot, a building contractor. He had a relationship with Sarah for five years from about 1982 and in that period spent a great deal of time at Woodrow.
x) Jonathan Dowding, a dairy farmer at Lower Vagg Farm at Chilthorne Domer, Yeovil. He has known the family since 1980.
The defendant also served a witness statement from Andrew Robinson. He is a chartered surveyor and became involved in 2008, giving advice to Frank and Jane about succession at Woodrow. Much of the detail about what happened concerning succession in 2007/08 is disputed. What took place bears on the merits of the case but also on the credibility of the most important witnesses. Mr Robinson had been due to come to court to give oral evidence but became unable to attend as a result of serious health problems and the defendant served a Civil Evidence Act notice on his witness statement. It was not objected to.
My impressions of the ten further witnesses called by the defendant and listed above is that they were thoroughly honest and doing their best to assist the court. None of them has any reason to do other than tell the truth. Again, that does not mean I do or should accept...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lucy Ann Andrews Habberfield v Jane Sarah Andrews Habberfield
...an equity, based on the principles of proprietary estoppel. He made an order giving effect to that equity. His judgment is at [2018] EWHC 317 (Ch), [2019] 1 FLR 121. The facts found 2 The judge considered the evidence in detail and made careful factual findings. What follows is a very abb......
-
Letchimy d/o Palanisamy Nadasan Majeed (alias Khadijah Nadasan) v Maha Devi d/o Palanisamy Nadasan (administrator of the estate of Devi d/o Gurusamy, deceased)
...died intestate. The HL found that there was proprietary estoppel and allowed David to keep the farm. In Habberfield v Habberfield [2018] EWHC 317 (Ch), the English High Court found that the constituents of proprietary estoppel had been proven. Thus, the court overrode the will of the father......