Obituary - Sarah Harriet Banner

I first met Sarah in 2007 when, as a newly co-opted Northamptonshire Law Society Council member, I was immediately struck by the confident and engaging Junior Lawyers Division Rep, who was clearly destined for great things.

Sarah started her legal career with Tollers in 2003, qualifying in 2007 as a solicitor and then progressing through Solicitor, Associate and Senior Associate private client roles with Howes Percival and then Shoosmiths. A member of STEP and a Fellow of the Agricultural Land Association, Sarah had a life-long love of learning, having read French and German at University of Southampton before taking professional qualifications at Birmingham City University.

Sarah served the Northamptonshire legal community well; firstly as Vice President of the Society in 2010/11 and 2011/12 and then as President in 2012/13. It was only Sarah’s move to Roythornes in Spalding as a Partner in their Wealth Protection Team in 2015 which brought her involvement with Council to an end. However, Sarah still kept a keen interest in NLS from the wilds of Lincolnshire and as anyone who ever met her would say, once met never forgotten.

Sarah was also an enthusiastic and effective Trustee of Northamptonshire Community Foundation and Lincolnshire Community Foundation. However, Sarah is probably best remembered by her clients for her thoughtful and personal advice which helped many of them through difficult times. This she did quietly with her trademark humour, compassion and humanity.

News of Sarah’s untimely and cruel death at the age of 40 from Melanoma on 19th January this year still doesn’t seem real. Naturally, a flood of messages of sympathy have reached Sarah’s beloved husband Alex, all of which I read and in them,

immediately recognised the loving, funny, vivacious force of nature that was Sarah.

How can this force of nature no longer be with us? Sarah’s former colleagues will testify that her response to such maudlin thoughts would be characteristically blunt, with demands that each and every one of us celebrate the good and positive things in life (Mood Hoovers not allowed!). Celebrating is something that Sarah continued to do, even through the bad times following her initial diagnosis in 2014 and the rollercoaster of treatment, improvements and setbacks which followed for the following six years. Indeed, in September 2019, Sarah described her latest scan results as being “less than ideal”, but rejoiced in what had been a summer of hope; a new house, a madcap puppy called Sunny and of course the joy she found in having her loving family and friends around her.

As we said goodbye to Sarah on 28th February at Peterborough Crematorium, Alex asked that people wear a flash of red, Sarah’s favourite colour and very typically Sarah. Donations can be made to Sue Ryder Thorpe Hall in Peterborough in memory of Sarah and the fantastic care she received from the hospice during her last months and Melanoma UK, a charity which spearheads initiatives designed to benefit and support Melanoma Patients and their families.

Rhona Rowland -

President Northamptonshire Law Society 2010-2012

P R O P E R T Y I N F O R M A T I O N

A different kind of search provider

Our approach is practical and straight forward in that we agree more local knowledge leads to improved levels ofservice. This is enforced by an example of our recruitment policy so that our reports are proof read by an ex head of conveyancing with over thirty years’ experience. Believe us when we say we know what makes the difference. Our clients tell us that we truly understand their challenges and needs, that’s because we have local offices run by local people using local knowledge and expertise to provide the level of service that other providers simply cannot.

Index East Central Unit 9 The Metro Centre Welbeck Way Peterborough, PE2 7UH

T: 01733 368600 E: eastcentral@indexpi.co.uk

The Difficulties of Proprietary Estoppel Claims

By Mandeep Chima

In certain circumstances, the law will intervene to enforce a promise to receive an interest in land or property made by one person to another. Legally, this claim is known as ‘proprietary estoppel’?

Whilst these claims are often difficult to prove and the outcome uncertain, the number of claims made has been on the rise in recent years, with an increasing number of aggrieved claimants taking their case to court. Proprietary estoppel disputes often arise in the farming industry, usually in circumstances where a farmer has promised a family member or employee that they will inherit the farming business in return for providing assistance in running the farm, often for little to no remuneration.

In accordance with the law set out in the case of Thorner v Major, a proprietary estoppel claim will be successfully made if it can be proven that:

• A promise or assurance was made to acquire a right in land.

• There was reliance on the assurance or promise.

• That the person relying on the broken promise or assurance suffered (or would suffer) detriment.

The overriding consideration of the court is fairness (or unconscionability, as it is often called). As such, even where all of the above elements are established, the court will only order a remedy if it is satisfied that the circumstances of the case make it fair to do so.

Furthermore, the successful party is not guaranteed to receive the interest in property or land he or she was promised. The remedy received, whether it be the property, money or something else entirely, will be determined by what the court considers to be fair in the circumstances of the case.

Recent Case Law

Habberfield v Habberfield [2019]

F operated a farming business in partnership with his wife, J, which was worth approximately £2.5 million. His daughter, L had worked on the farm for 30 years with a particular focus on dairy farming, which soon became the centre of the business. L worked incredibly long hours for low pay and very few holidays.

L alleged that she had continued working at the farm because F had assured her that she would take over the business when he retired. In 2018, L refused an offer to go into partnership with her parents. She left the business in 2013, following a dispute with her sister. F died in 2014, leaving the farm to J, who closed the dairy unit.

The High Court found that L had established a claim based on proprietary estoppel, having suffered a detriment in reliance on F’s assurances. Whilst L’s work on the farm over the course of 30 years was a detriment which could not be quantified, the court decided that there was also a quantifiable detriment to L worth £220,000. L’s rejection of the partnership offer did not defeat her claim but was a factor to be taken into account in determining how the equity should be satisfied.

L was awarded £1.2 million to acquire a viable dairy unit and associated land. J appealed to the Court of Appeal, but the appeal was dismissed.

Guest v Guest and another [2019]

On leaving school in 1982, A worked for at least 60 hours per week at the family farm for a low wage. In 1989, he moved into a cottage on the farm.

In 2014, the relationship between A and his parents broke down and in 2015, A left the business and found alternative employment. A’s parents made two new wills before their death, the first disinheriting A partially and the second entirely.

The court found that A’s claim was established as until 2014, D had consistently led A to believe that he would inherit the farming business. D’s assurances were “clear enough” and sustained over several years. A had reasonably relied on this, to his significant financial detriment.

A’s expectations regarding his inheritance had shifted in around 2012 when it became apparent that D also intended to provide for R in the farming business. However, this was not considered fatal to A’s claim. D’s assurances were always to the effect that A would inherit a sufficient stake in Tump farm to enable him to continue farming after his parents’ deaths.

Further, although A was in part responsible for the breakdown in his relationship with his parents, this did not diminish the injustice resulting from D disinheriting him. Nor was A’s ability to obtain alternative employment detrimental to his claim.

When considering what remedy to award A, the court’s view was that A’s expectations had to be balanced against the detriment to him in relying on D’s promises, and any potential injustice to the parents given their remaining interest in the farm. The court was also keen to ensure a clean break between the parties. A was awarded a lump sum representing 50% of the business and 40% of the farm property.

It is understood that this case is currently on appeal.

Moore v Moore and another [2018] EWCA Civ 2669

R ran a family farming business with his brother, G. R’s son, S had worked on the farm since childhood and subsequently became an equity partner.