Article summary
The Supreme Court has allowed in part an appeal of a proprietary estoppel claim whereby the parents argued the remedy to pay a lump sum equal to 50% of the market value of their farming business and 40% of the market value of the buildings and land to their son was incorrectly based on the son’s expected inheritance and incorrectly accelerated. The Supreme Court substituted alternate remedies of either putting the farm in a trust such that the son would receive his entitlement on the parents’ deaths or paying reduced compensation to the son in the present to reflect his earlier-than-anticipated receipt. Richard Wilson KC, barrister at Serle Court comments on the decision and the degree of clarity provided on how relief in propriety estoppel claims should be assessed.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial