Inheritance rights: Supreme Court delivers decision on Guest v Guest

The Supreme Court has delivered its decision on the long-running Guest v Guest case, which concerns the dispute between Andrew Guest and his parents over his inheritance rights to Tump Farm.

Andrew Guest claims he was promised the Monmouthshire dairy farm in return for long hours and low wages working on it.

However, after a falling out in 2014, his parents made a will excluding him from any inheritance apart from an entitlement to occupy a farm cottage and terms to carry on a farming business tenancy.

At first instance, the High Court awarded Andrew a clean break lump payment of 50% of the value of the dairy farm and 40% of the value of the farm buildings to start a life elsewhere.

However David and Josephine Guest - Andrew's parents - appealed on the basis it would require them to sell the farm. Their appeal was dismissed.

Laura Phillips, senior associate at law firm Kingsley Napley, said the Supreme Court considered whether the remedy Andrew was originally awarded went beyond what was necessary.

"The legal debate was whether he should be compensated for his disadvantage or to meet his expectation," she said, "The Judges did not all agree on this issue."

However, the majority found that the High Court had awarded the claimant more than was promised.

Today’s decision said if a clean break was necessary, and the defendants needed to sell the farm, there should be a discount to reflect the claimant’s receipt prior to his parents’ death.

Ms Phillips added: "It found it would also be possible, in this case, for the farm to be held on trust for the claimant to receive following his parents’ death, which would avoid David and Josephine being forced to sell the farm. "

To that extent, the Court accepted David and Josephine’s appeal. In practice they can now decide whether to sell the farm to achieve a “clean break” or put the farm into trust.

The parties were directed back to the High Court if questions of the payment terms and trust are not agreed.

Ms Phillips added: “Today’s decision highlights that the Court is still divided over how to adequately compensate a successful claimant in farming inheritance disputes.

"However, it also demonstrates the wide discretion that the Court has to provide remedies that would help achieve equity between the parties.”