Last Updated on 1st June 2026
Farming inheritance disputes and what you must prove to bring a successful claim.
Farming families face some of the most complex and emotionally charged inheritance disputes. Our specialist inheritance dispute solicitors have extensive experience resolving these cases. For a free consultation, call 0333 888 0407 or email info@inheritancedisputes.co.uk.
Inheritance solicitor, Hannah Coton-Smith, considers the recent High Court decision in Hodgson v Hodgson; a case that highlights how these disputes arise and what a claimant must prove in order to succeed. While the courts are willing to enforce informal succession promises where a child has committed their working life to the farm in reliance on assurances about future inheritance, this case emphasises that strict legal principles still apply.
Background to the farming inheritance dispute case
Anthony and Joyce Hodgson owned a farm in Slingsby comprising around 32 acres, with a mix of residential and commercial buildings. They had two children, Jane and James.
Anthony’s Will left the residue of his estate to Joyce, if she survived him. Following Anthony’s death, Jane brought three separate claims against her father’s estate:
- A claim regarding the proper interpretation of the Will;
- A claim based on proprietary estoppel; and
- A claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
However, all three claims ultimately failed.
Interpretation of the Will
A key issue for the Court to decide was whether Anthony’s share of the farm could pass under his Will at all.
Jane argued that her parents owned the farm as tenants in common, meaning that Anthony had a distinct share that he could leave under his Will.
However, James and Joyce contended that the farm was owned as joint tenants, meaning Anthony’s interest passed automatically to Joyce on his death (by survivorship), irrespective of the terms of his Will.
The Court confirmed that:
- The default position is that equity follows the law, i.e. beneficial ownership usually reflects legal ownership; and that
- It was Jane’s responsibility to prove that the property was held differently (as tenants in common).
She was unable to do so.
The Court found that the farm was jointly owned, and so Anthony’s interest passed to Joyce automatically. This meant that the gift Jane relied on in the Will would only have taken effect if Joyce had died first, which had not happened.
Proprietary Estoppel
Jane also claimed that her father had promised she would inherit the farm if she dedicated her life to it. Proprietary estoppel arises where:
- A clear promise or assurance is made;
- Someone relies on that promise; and
- They suffer a detriment as a result.
Jane argued that she relied on promises that “the farm would one day be hers” and in doing so she worked on the farm for years, helped diversify the business and essentially built her life around it.
The Court accepted that promises had been made but not in the way Jane understood them. Instead, the judge found that the promise was that Jane would inherit after both parents had died, not on the first death, and that Jane’s belief that she would inherit earlier was a misunderstanding, not a broken promise.
Crucially, her proprietary estoppel claim also failed on detriment as the Court found that Jane enjoyed farming and chose that lifestyle, she had been given a business opportunity on the farm and she benefited from rent-free accommodation, income, and use of the land.
The Judge held that Jane’s actions were consistent with a chosen way of life, not a sacrifice made in reliance on a promise.
As a result, the proprietary estoppel claim did not succeed.
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
Finally, Jane brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, contesting that the Will failed to make reasonable financial provision for her.
Adult children can bring claims under the Act, and the court considered the usual factors, including:
- Jane’s financial position and future needs
- The needs of other beneficiaries
- The size and nature of the estate
- Any relevant conduct or other circumstances
Jane sought provision of the Farmhouse where she lived. However, the Court noted the long-standing principle that claims by financially independent adult children are often challenging, stating that:
“Claims by healthy adult children, with no specific dependency or obligation owed to them, may fall on stony ground.”
Taking into account Jane’s earnings, financial independence, and the benefits she had already received, the Court concluded that the Will did provide reasonable financial provision.
Her inheritance claim therefore also failed.
A practical reminder to farming families
Farming families often rely on informal understandings built up over many years. However, this case underlines the importance of ensuring that Wills accurately reflect intentions, clarifying ownership of land and assets, and communicating clearly with family members.
Seeking legal advice and formalising arrangements at an early stage can help prevent costly and emotionally challenging disputes in the future.
Contact our expert solicitors for a free consultation
Our specialist inheritance dispute solicitors are experienced in handling farming inheritance disputes. We can advise you on your options, including early resolution strategies to minimise costs.
We have been shortlisted for the DASLS Team of the Year Award 2026 and are recommended by the 2026 edition of The Legal 500 which has said this about us:
- “Thoroughly knowledgeable… and do their absolute best for a client.”
- “Naomi Ireson – a legend in the making… clients’ trust and confidence are very well earned.”
- “Hayley is an undoubted professional, showing compassion during what is a very upsetting time.”