Where there is inconsistency and a lack of clarity in family property dealings
The High Court's recent judgement in a complex family property dispute underscores critical lessons for individuals involved in informal living arrangements and those relying on familial assurances regarding property.
Background:
This is a lengthy case surrounding a bitter family dispute relating to a UK property. Mr. and Mrs. Janice Griins had four sons, Julian, Derek, David, and Andrew, most of whom live in America. Since 1999, Andrew has occupied a part (or parts) of a freehold property which was bought by his parents in 1994 after he took up employment in London. The property is a four-bedroomed, Georgian terraced house, which includes a self-contained flat on the lower ground floor (31A).
The core arrangement was informal in that Andrew would manage/care for the property in his parents' absence. Initially, Andrew's payments were sporadic or non-existent, later settling at approximately £1,550 per month. This arrangement appeared to crystallise around 2016 when Andrew's (now ex-) husband was a tenant of the ground floor flat.
In the first will of May 2015, Janice and Mr. Grijns provided two-thirds of the property to Andrew, and the rest to David and Derek. Thereafter, on various occasions, Janice expressed an intent to sell the property due to a lack of use. Mr. Grijns died in 2019, and since that date, Janice has been the sole owner of the property.
In March 2019, 31A was let to a Mr. Ramscar, which resulted in litigation and settlement, and led to a serious disagreement between Janice and Andrew. Attempts at reconciliation failed, which led to Janice’s demand that Andrew leave the house. Later in June of that year, Andrew was made redundant, leading to a reconciliation. Andrew ceased making payments for his occupation no later than 2020. He claims that this was by agreement with Janice on the proviso that he would assume full responsibility for any repairs or maintenance and, to that end, he could rent out 31A and retain any net income. Janice has since disputed the latter part of his claim.
The question of a potential sale returned in September 2020, with Janice disappointed with the requested valuation. In January 2021, Janice expressed her wish to change her will to make Andrew the sole beneficiary of the property, a will which was executed in March 2021. However, in an email dated April 2021, Janice subsequently expressed her wish not to transfer the property to Andrew and sought to revert to the 2015 will.
Janice sold some property in the US but made a bad investment, resulting in the children considering conservatorship, but instead opting for David and Derek to hold Power of Attorney. The property then became a source of tension among the brothers, with a prevailing perception that Janice and Andrew had collaborated secretly.
In August and September of 2022, Janice instructed a property consultant to appraise the property, although by late September, Andrew had cancelled an agent's appointment on the basis that his mother lacked ‘capacity’. In September 2022, the issue arose concerning Andrew's entitlement to rent out 31A through City Relay.
Janice's visit to the property in early to mid-October 2022 proved unsuccessful. By 2022, Andrew's brothers had taken on a greater role in Janice's affairs, culminating in their being granted Power of Attorney. They also sought to influence her will, advocating for Andrew's exclusion from her US will due to benefits already received. Janice made a new UK will, leaving one-quarter of the property's value to each of her four children, naming David and Derek as her executors.
In February/March 2023, after a fresh outburst from Andrew, Janice began formal steps to sell the property. On 29 March 2023, notices to quit were served in respect of the property. On 10 June 2023, Janice and her three sons arrived at the property only to find that their keys did not work. Andrew refused to open the door, even when he saw that his mother was unwell. A locksmith was called but was stopped by police (telephonically). Derek obtained a crowbar and broke open the door with Janice's authority. Police again attended, and there was a physical altercation. Janice remained while the brothers were directed to leave.
On 13 June 2023, Andrew issued a claim for a proprietary interest in the property, or at least an irrevocable licence to occupy it, based on proprietary estoppel. He alleges that his mother made assurances upon which he detrimentally relied. Additionally, he claims trespass against Janice and his brothers for forcible entry in June 2023, seeking equitable compensation for breach of her equitable obligations.
Janice contends that, since 2016, Andrew has occupied the property as a bare licensee, that his licence has been lawfully terminated, and that he currently occupies the property as a trespasser. Janice seeks mesne profits (or damages for use and occupation) from the termination of Andrew's licence, together with an account of profits arising, Janice contends, from the fact that Andrew has, since 2020, periodically rented out the premises without her express approval and has not accounted for the profits of those rental transactions directly to her.
Decision:
The High Court dismissed Andrew’s claims and held that he has been a trespasser at the property since 1 August 2023, that he is liable for mesne profits from that date and until possession is delivered up at the rate of £85,000 per annum and, subject to double recovery, he must also account for the net rents that he has received from City Relay since 10 May 2023.
The Master fundamentally rejects Andrew's assertion that his actions (i.e., remaining at the property, making improvements, shaping his life) were based on promises or assurances made. The Master finds that Andrew remained at the property and made his life there purely out of "his own wishes and convenience". In short, "it suited him to stay,” which directly contradicts any claim of his relying on assurances. The Court noted that the arrangements were "overwhelmingly in his favour," enabling Andrew to live the "good life" with "expensive foreign holidays, luxury cars, and with the capacity to pay off his Monaco mortgage". Regarding the word undertaken, the Judge concludes that Andrew's expenditure on improvements was "nothing more than works carried out in order to make his life at the property more comfortable". Most of the dealings from October 2020 were based solely on Andrew’s concerns of being disinherited.
The Court is "satisfied that, if the only alleged detriment were the works of improvement that Andrew claims to have carried out, then that would have been insufficient to establish any equity in his favour." Even if these improvements were carried out in reliance, the "benefits attaching to his occupation" (as detailed in paras 241-243 and quantified at over £1m net of payments) would have "heavily outweighed any the burden incurred".
Implications:
This judgement reinforces the notion that establishing proprietary estoppel is not merely about showing some detriment or reliance. The detriment must be substantial and, crucially, must be unconscionable for the promisor to resile from the promise. The Court's detailed balancing exercise, weighing Andrew's benefits against his alleged detriments, highlights the rigorous assessment courts routinely undertake.
The Master's consideration of the fairness to Janice's other children in the context of a potential remedy is a vital point. It shows that courts will not simply enforce an expectation if it leads to disproportionate or unfair outcomes for other legitimate beneficiaries or heirs, especially where the promisor's estate has been diminished.
The case clearly reiterates the fundamental common law principle that a bare licensee has no right to exclusive possession against the licensor (owner) and that the owner can typically enter their property lawfully.