Mate v Mate [2023] EWHC 238 (Ch)

Julie Mate spent years working with a planning consultant to remove her family's farmland from the Green Belt, securing housing allocation that led to a £9 million sale to Persimmon. Her proprietary estoppel claim failed due to insufficiently clear promises, but she succeeded in unjust enrichment, recovering £652,500.

Facts

The claimant, Julie Mate, was one of five children of Shirley Mate (first defendant) and the late Donald Mate. Her brothers Andrew and Robert (second and third defendants) inherited the family dairy farm in Netherton, West Yorkshire following Donald’s death in 1992, while the three daughters received comparatively modest provision. Shirley retained a 50% interest in the partnership land.

From 2008 onwards, Julie engaged planning consultant Duncan Hartley to work on removing approximately 40 acres of the farm (the Netherton Moor land) from the Green Belt and securing its allocation for residential housing. She paid Mr Hartley’s fees personally and undertook substantial research and drafting work herself. Following a site meeting on 23 June 2008 attended by Julie, Mr Hartley, Shirley, Andrew and Robert, the project proceeded over many years. The land was eventually included in the 2010 SHLAA, released from the Green Belt, and allocated for housing in the draft Local Plan published in 2015.

Unknown to Julie, Shirley, Andrew and Robert had entered into an option agreement with Persimmon Homes in October 2014, giving Persimmon the right to purchase the land for £9 million. In December 2016, Shirley executed a declaration of trust transferring her beneficial interest in the land to Andrew and Robert. Persimmon subsequently obtained planning permission for 250 dwellings and exercised its option, resulting in sales totalling £9 million.

Issues

The court had to decide:

• Whether Shirley made promises of sufficient clarity to Julie, and whether Andrew and Robert acquiesced in or adopted those promises, such that an equity arose under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.
• Whether Andrew and Robert had been unjustly enriched by Julie’s services in promoting the Netherton Moor land for development.
• If unjust enrichment was established, the appropriate value of Julie’s services.

Arguments

Claimant’s case

Julie contended that Shirley had promised from the late 1990s that, on any sale of farmland, the proceeds would be shared equally between Shirley and her five children. She said she worked on the Netherton Moor project in reliance on those promises, and that Andrew and Robert were aware of them. Alternatively, she argued that her services had unjustly enriched the defendants and that she should be compensated as a land promoter, remunerated by commission on the uplift in land value.

Defendants’ case

Andrew and Robert denied knowledge of any promises by Shirley and argued that any such promises were insufficiently clear to ground an estoppel. They contended that a promise to pay money could not found a proprietary estoppel claim. They also argued that Julie acted gratuitously as a family member, and that if unjust enrichment were established, her remuneration should be limited to a small hourly-rate payment plus Mr Hartley’s fees. Shirley initially denied the claim but subsequently admitted it in May 2022.

Judgment

Proprietary Estoppel

Mr Andrew Sutcliffe KC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, applied the principles summarised by Lewison LJ in Davies v Davies [2016] 2 P & C.R. 10 and considered by the Supreme Court in Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27. He accepted that Shirley’s promises, properly analysed, were promises relating to property (the proceeds of sale) and could in principle found a proprietary estoppel claim, following Sutcliffe v Lloyd and Moore v Moore.

However, he found that no promise of sufficient clarity had been made. Although Shirley may have made generic remarks that the daughters would be “looked after financially” if land was sold, she never specified what share they could expect. The judge found that Julie’s own contemporaneous correspondence—particularly the May 2008 letter to her sisters, the June 2014 letter to Shirley, the December 2015 and January 2016 letters to Andrew, the February 2016 document prepared for Mr Oates, and the December 2016 letter to Mr Oates—was inconsistent with Shirley having made clear promises of equal shares. The first explicit reference by Julie to a promise of equal shares appeared only in April 2020, after she had seen draft particulars of claim. The proprietary estoppel claim therefore failed.

Unjust Enrichment

Applying the fourfold test in Benedetti v Sawiris [2014] AC 938, the judge found:

• Andrew and Robert were enriched by Julie’s services. She was not acting gratuitously; from 2004 onwards she made clear she expected to benefit from the work.
• The enrichment was at Julie’s expense, both in terms of Mr Hartley’s fees and the 500–600 hours of work she personally performed between 2008 and 2018.
• The enrichment was unjust: the defendants had notice of the services, knew Julie expected reward, and could have rejected the benefit but did not. Andrew’s failure to respond to Julie’s letters of December 2015 and January 2016 justified her continuing the work.

The judge preferred the evidence of Julie’s expert Mr Creighton over the defendants’ expert Mr Spawforth. He found that Julie’s work was instrumental in the release of the Netherton Moor land from the Green Belt and its allocation for housing, and that Persimmon only became aware of the land through its inclusion in the SHLAA resulting from Julie and Mr Hartley’s submissions. Persimmon’s own representations in September 2015 were too late to influence the Council’s decision.

Quantum

The judge held that Julie performed a role akin to that of a land promoter and should be remunerated on a commission basis, following the approach in Way v Latilla [1937] 3 All ER 759 and Benedetti v Sawiris. The experts agreed that a professional land promoter would have been paid between 15% and 30% of the uplift in value. However, because Julie did not perform all the services of a land promoter (Persimmon undertook significant later work including obtaining planning permission), the judge took the lower end of the range (15%) and halved it to 7.5%, reflecting that Persimmon’s services were broadly equivalent in value to Julie’s and eliminated the remaining risk.

The uplift in value was £8.7 million (from agricultural value of £300,000 to £9 million sale price). Julie was therefore entitled to 7.5% of £8.7 million, namely £652,500. The judge declined to order separate reimbursement of Mr Hartley’s fees, holding those were part of the services for which Julie was being paid through the commission-based award.

Implications

The judgment illustrates several important points. First, on proprietary estoppel, it reinforces that a promise must be of sufficient clarity in context to justify reasonable reliance, and that contemporaneous documentary evidence will be closely scrutinised when assessing whether alleged oral promises were actually made. Vague assurances that daughters would be “looked after financially” were insufficient to ground an equity.

Second, the judgment confirms that proprietary estoppel can in principle be founded on promises to share proceeds of sale of property, distinguishing such promises from mere promises to pay money.

Third, and most significantly, the case demonstrates the flexibility of unjust enrichment as a remedy where a family member performs valuable services akin to those of a professional, in circumstances where the beneficiaries knew the services were not gratuitous but failed to reach any express agreement on remuneration. The court was willing to value such services by reference to a commission calculated as a percentage of the uplift in land value, rather than limiting recovery to hourly time costs. This approach may be of particular significance to claimants who have informally promoted land through planning processes without a formal land promotion agreement.

The decision also highlights the risks for landowners who allow family members to undertake significant work on their behalf without clarifying the basis of remuneration, and who subsequently engage professional developers without informing or involving the person whose earlier work made the development possible.

Verdict: Julie’s proprietary estoppel claim was dismissed. Her claim in unjust enrichment succeeded, with the value of her services assessed at £652,500, payable by Andrew and Robert Mate.

Source: Mate v Mate [2023] EWHC 238 (Ch)