The legal limits of informal promises in farming and family businesses

When discussing succession, can you rely on informal promises in farming and family businesses? Our inheritance & trusts disputes experts examine a recent case to find out.

In Maile & Anor v Maile & Ors (2025), a High Court case heard in Bristol, two brothers, Steven and John Maile, claimed that their late grandmother had promised them the £2.65 million family farm.

They argued that they were entitled to it under the legal principle of proprietary estoppel (which can enforce informal promises about land) and that their grandmother’s will was invalid because of undue influence, lack of capacity, and lack of knowledge and approval. All of their claims failed.

This case is a timely reminder that informal promises in farming and family businesses – no matter how heartfelt – rarely beat properly drafted agreements and clear legal paperwork.

Why written agreements override informal promises in farming and family businesses

In this case, the judge’s observations made it clear that casual family remarks such as “one day this will all be yours” are rarely enough to found a claim. He said: “These sorts of generalised statements were made by the deceased, [but] I do not believe they could reasonably have been interpreted as meaning that they would directly inherit the farm.”

The brothers had entered into a partnership agreement with their mother, Mary in 2015, which had allocated them 80% of the profits, granted them an option to purchase Mary’s share on her death, and required them to give up possession of the farm within 12 months of her death.

The court found that this formal, contractual arrangement superseded any prior informal promises. Even if Mary had made comments about leaving them the farm, the legal effect of the partnership documentation was to “contract out” of any proprietary estoppel claim made by the brothers.

This reinforces that clarity and documentation matter far more than informal sentiment – especially in multigenerational farming families. Having clear legal documentation in place is always worthwhile and could prevent disputes arising in some cases.

Detriment must be real

Another point highlighted in this case was on detriment. When making their claim, the brothers said they had worked for “pocket money”, but the judge found this “misleading” as in fact, they received:

• £70,000 in contracting fees,
• £500 monthly drawings, and
• £43,000 from a rental business with their mother.

Overall, there was no net detriment, reinforcing that an estoppel claim will only succeed if the detriment is substantial, not merely a reflection of normal family working arrangements.

Serious allegations demand serious evidence

The brothers tried to argue that their grandmother’s will was invalid, alleging undue influence and lack of knowledge and approval. These allegations were firmly rejected. Instead, the judge relied on the solicitor’s notes taken at the time, calling them “an accurate record of the discussions… that is all that matters.”

This suggests that detailed notes made during meetings – especially by professionals – are often the strongest evidence in disputes about someone’s mental capacity or whether they were influenced. For this reason, creating a will with the help of experienced professionals is enormously beneficial. Homemade or DIY wills often lack this kind of proof, making them more vulnerable to legal challenges.

Executors can claim compensation for unauthorised occupation

The partnership agreement stated that the brothers had to leave the farm within 12 months of their mother Mary’s death. They didn’t.

As a result, the court supported the executors’ counterclaim and ordered the brothers to pay mesne profits – a legal term for compensation owed when someone stays on property without permission.

This suggests it is possible to recover rent or profits from someone who stays on land they no longer have a right to occupy. It also highlights an important point: ignoring exit terms in agreements can lead to serious financial consequences.

Key takeaways from Maile & Anor v Maile & Ors (2025)

This case shows the limits of relying on informal promises in farming and family businesses:

• Verbal promises aren’t legally binding.
• Written agreements take priority.
• Clear documentation is the strongest evidence.

What can you do?

Disputes often arise because families or business partners don’t formally record their plans. What starts as a handshake or shared understanding can quickly turn into a costly and emotional legal battle.

In cases like Maile v Maile, legal fees alone can reach hundreds of thousands of pounds, which is far more than the cost of getting proper advice early on.

Seeking legal advice on wills and succession planning, partnership and shareholder agreements, and farm or business ownership structures is not just wise – it’s cost-effective. Review and update partnership or shareholder agreements regularly – particularly where expectations of succession are likely to diverge from written terms.

Clear legal documents protect family wealth and help preserve relationships when ownership or inheritance is at stake.

For guidance from one of our inheritance and trusts disputes solicitors about informal promises in farming and family businesses, please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Our Legal 500-rated inheritance & trusts disputes team offer friendly but practical advice on this complex area of law.