Re Basham (Deceased)
A stepdaughter who worked for her stepfather for many years without pay, in reliance on his assurance that she would inherit his property, was entitled to the estate by proprietary estoppel.
Facts
The claimant's mother married the deceased when the claimant was a teenager. Over many years, the claimant and her husband worked for the deceased without pay, helping in his business and caring for him, on the understanding, encouraged by him, that she would inherit his property when he died. He died intestate, and his estate would have passed to his relatives under the intestacy rules. She claimed the estate on the basis of proprietary estoppel.
Legal principle
Edward Nugee QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, held that the claimant was entitled to the whole estate. He said that where one person, A, has acted to his detriment on the faith of a belief, which was known to and encouraged by another person, B, that he either has or is going to be given a right in or over B's property, B cannot insist on his strict legal rights if to do so would be inconsistent with A's belief. The principle could apply to a belief that A would inherit B's property, and was not confined to a specific asset. The approach was later approved in Gillett v Holt and Thorner v Major.
Related cases on family provision, forfeiture and other claims against estates
- Re Besterman (Deceased) [1984] Ch 458
- Re Callaghan [1985] Fam 1
- Re Coventry (Deceased) [1980] Ch 461
- Cowan v Foreman [2019] EWCA Civ 1336, [2020] Fam 129
- Dunbar v Plant [1998] Ch 412
- Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210
- Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27
- Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17, [2018] AC 545
Studying wills, succession and probate? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
