A Supreme Court judgment has mainly upheld a high court ruling on an inheritance dispute case between farmer, Andrew Guest (56) and his parents, David (81) and Josephine (80). 

The appeal follows an earlier High Court trial brought by Andrew Guest after he was disinherited by his father. Andrew was repeatedly made assurances by his parents that he would inherit a large part of the family farm, which he had worked on for a low wage since the age of 16.

The family has farmed at Tump Farm, near Chepstow, for three generations. Andrew, and later his wife and children, lived in a converted cottage on the farm. Andrew has two younger siblings, Ross (45) and Janice (54).

In 2012, the family created two separate farming partnerships – one between Andrew and his parents at Tump Farm, and another between Ross and his parents at a rented, neighbouring farm. In April, 2015, the relationship between Andrew and his father broke down and the partnership was dissolved, and Andrew was told to find another job, move out of the cottage and was disinherited completely.

Andrew brought a claim in the High Court against this, where the judge accepted the parents repeatedly led him to believe he would inherit a significant part of the farm. The judge further held it was unconscionable for the parents to go back on this promise.

The judge ordered the parents to pay Andrew a sum of money calculated by reference to:

• 50% of the post-tax market value of the farming business carried on at Tump Farm;
• 40% of the post-tax market value of Tump Farm.

The case then moved to the Supreme Court, which determined the correct approach to framing a remedy for Andrew was based on the appellant’s expectation of inheritance, rather than the detriment-based approach put forward by his parents. This court did, however, partially allow the parents’ appeal on the High Court’s overall remedy, on the basis this otherwise accelerated their son’s inheritance during their lifetimes.

This order, in effect, awarded Andrew what his parents had promised him he would inherit. The judge recognised this would almost certainly mean the farm would need to be sold in order to satisfy the judgment.

The Supreme Court held that the parents now had two choices to fulfil Andrew’s expectation – to pay a reduced sum to Andrew now (based on an early receipt discount to be agreed or determined); or hold Andrew’s share of the farm on trust for him during their lifetimes.