Supreme Court ruling in farming succession case
© William/Adobe Stock The Supreme Court has found that a disinherited farmer’s son was awarded more by the High Court than he had been promised.
The long-running Guest v Guest case concerns a dispute between Andrew Guest and his parents over his inheritance rights to Tump Farm, Monmouthshire.
The High Court initially awarded Andrew a lump sum of 50% of the farm’s value and 40% of the buildings’ value, representing about £1.3m.
See also: Why inheritance promises can end up in court
His parents appealed to the Appeal Court on the basis this would mean selling the farm.
Their appeal was dismissed, but they then took it to the Supreme Court, which considered whether the original award was too generous.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, substituting alternate remedies of either putting the farm into trust in favour of their three children or paying compensation to Andrew now, with a reduction to reflect his earlier-than-anticipated receipt. The parents can choose between these options.
Law firm Kingsley Napley said this latest decision highlights that the court is still divided over how to adequately compensate a successful claimant in these types of cases.