In a hard-hitting ruling in the Scott v Scott and Others case, the High Court rejected a long-standing claim by a son who spent much of his life working on his father’s farm.
Adam Clive Scott had argued that his father, Richard Norman Scott, made lifetime promises entitling him to ownership of the family farm. The court dismissed those promises, upheld Richard’s 2016 wills, and refused to treat longstanding tenancies as giving Adam a proprietary interest in the land. The result and the reasoning send a clear message: without more (ideally formal legal documentation), many years of work, loyalty and expectation alone will not be enough.
This article explores the lessons from the recent High Court decision in Scott v Scott and Others, a case that highlights the risks of relying on informal promises when it comes to farm succession and estate planning. The article also examines what the ruling means for wills, tenancies and family businesses.
Richard Scott was a farmer who, over decades expanded the size and value of his originally inherited farmland through various purchases and improvements. He also fathered many children across several relationships: at least 19 in total. One of those children was Adam, from Richard’s first marriage.
According to Adam, in 1985 his father promised to 'set him up in farming'. Over time, Adam worked on the farm, acquired some parcels of land in his own right, and operated substantial parts of the family agricultural business. He alleged that these lifetime promises, plus his detriment of labour, costs, and lost opportunities, meant he was entitled on proprietary estoppel grounds, to an interest in the estate after Richard’s death.
When Richard died in 2018, Adam also challenged the validity of Richard’s last wills from 2016, arguing lack of testamentary capacity/lack of knowledge and approval and claimed that previously granted tenancies were sham arrangements.
The court found that the 1985 assurance to 'set Adam up in farming' referred to opportunities during Richard’s lifetime, not a binding guarantee of ownership after death. Crucially, none of the valid wills executed after 1995 contained any gift of the farm to Adam.
Further, even though Adam worked on the farm for decades and claimed detriment, the court weighed the benefits and drawbacks: over time, Adam had gained significant benefits such as income, land transfers and business success, so a material net detriment was not demonstrated. That balance meant equity did not favour him.
Although evidence was presented that Richard suffered from degenerative health conditions, including a diagnosis of fronto-temporal dementia, the court accepted expert evidence that at the times in 2016 when he made his final wills he had testamentary capacity. Those wills were properly executed and attested, and there was no sign he lacked knowledge or approval of their contents.
The decision reaffirms again that a degree of mental decline is not necessarily fatal to validity.
Adam argued that tenancies granted to him were sham arrangements - perhaps intended as placeholders, or devices to benefit others after death. The court examined the evidence, including valuations and timing, and it was unable to find that the tenancies were a sham. Several of them were clearly genuine, longstanding tenancies. There was no secret trust or disguised will.
No matter how heartfelt or how long-standing, lifetime assurances that 'you’ll get the farm one day' do not of themselves amount to an effective gift. Those assurances should be translated into formal legal documents, i.e. wills, trusts, or deeds, to be sure of effecting the gift.
Labour, investment, hopes, expectations and even years of 'sweat equity' may not count as sufficient detriment if the person also benefited substantially over time. Equity looks at the overall balance, not only the emotion or commitment.
A diagnosis of dementia or other cognitive illness does not automatically render a will invalid. What matters is the capacity at the time of execution. In the Scott v Scott case, understanding, approval, proper execution and professional involvement was sufficient.
When property, farms or family businesses are involved, clarity around who owns what - as shown by deeds, tenancy agreements, planning permissions, wills or trust documents - is crucial. Long standing family arrangements should be formalised to avoid uncertainty.
Court scrutiny will be rigorous. Vague recollections, family lore, or promises of the past may be of limited help. Litigation risk is real, i.e. reputational and emotional costs.
Though rooted in a farm family’s dynamics, the Scott v Scott case carries broader importance for anyone managing multi-generation estates i.e. farms, land holdings, property portfolios and family businesses, in the context of changing relationships, multiple marriages and complicated family structures. It warns that, in modern English law, formality trumps familiarity. Courts demand clarity, evidence, documentation and proper execution - not sentiment or family tradition.
For solicitors, estate-planners or family-business advisers: the case underscores the importance of regular reviews, clear wills/trusts, properly drafted property agreements and honest conversations with all potential stakeholders.
For further information, please contact our disputed wills team.
