The High Court struck out a son’s claim to his late father’s family home and other assets, ruling that his promissory estoppel claim was statute barred under the Civil Liability Act 1961.
Mr Justice Herbert held that the cause of action arose during the father’s lifetime and survived against his estate. The claim was issued more than two years after the father’s death, and no earlier proceedings concerning that cause of action were pending when he died.
The plaintiff said his parents had represented that he would be the major beneficiary of their wills and inherit the family home. He said he returned from England, lived with them, contributed to the home and gave up other activities in reliance on those promises. Those were his claims; the court’s ruling did not determine whether the promises were made or whether they entitled him to the property.
The dispute followed earlier proceedings under section 117 of the Succession Act 1965. In 2009, the High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s application alleging that his father had failed in his moral duty to make proper provision for him. The judge in that case found the plaintiff had not discharged his burden of proof and considered the provision in the will prudent. The plaintiff appealed, then withdrew the appeal in July 2010, and the High Court order was affirmed.
The new action was commenced on 27 July 2010. In it, the plaintiff sought, among other relief, a declaration that his father’s will was void and relied on promissory estoppel. Justice Herbert noted that the earlier case had proceeded solely under section 117, although the plaintiff had raised the alleged promises as part of his evidence there. No new or material evidence was identified in the present proceedings.
Applying the reasoning in *Prendergast v McLaughlin*, the judge concluded that the alleged obligation to make a will leaving the property to the plaintiff would have had to be performed during the father’s lifetime. The claim therefore subsisted before his death and was subject to the statutory time limit. The father died on 18 December 2006, and the action was brought outside the two-year period.
The defendants had also asked the court to strike out the proceedings as an abuse of process under the rule in *Henderson v Henderson*. Having found the claim statute barred, Justice Herbert said it was unnecessary to decide that issue.