A daughter’s attempt to claim part of her late father’s £1.25 million Yorkshire property has failed, after the High Court rejected her claims under his will, the doctrine of proprietary estoppel and the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The case, Hodgson v Hodgson [2026] EWHC 922 (Ch), was decided by HH Judge Davis-White KC in the Business and Property Courts in Leeds on 23 April 2026. Anthony Hodgson, known as Tony, died in October 2020 aged 74, leaving property at Slingsby, North Yorkshire. A jointly appointed valuation expert valued the property as a whole at £1,250,000 as of June 2025. His daughter, Jane Hodgson, argued that she was entitled to her father’s half interest in part of the property under his will, or alternatively through proprietary estoppel or the Inheritance Act 1975. The judge rejected all three claims.
Hodgson v Hodgson case: why the High Court rejected Jane Hodgson’s claim to part of the family property
At the centre of the dispute was Tony’s will, made on 23 March 2016. Jane argued that a clause leaving her father’s interest in his remaining real property and land entitled her to his half share in the area of the farm she had been using, known in the judgment as Jane’s Land. The judge disagreed after considering the wording of the will alongside the surrounding circumstances. He found that the will first provided for Tony’s residue to pass to his wife, Joyce, and that the gifts of specific areas of land to Jane and her brother James would only operate if Joyce failed to survive Tony. Because Joyce survived her husband, those substitute gifts did not take effect. The judge also found that the property at issue, apart from Wyville Hall, had been held by Tony and Joyce as joint tenants in law and equity immediately before Tony’s death. That meant Tony’s interest passed to Joyce by survivorship rather than forming part of his estate.The judgment also examined earlier discussions about the couple’s wills. Solicitors’ attendance notes from 2013 and 2015 recorded different plans for dividing the property between their children after both parents had died. By October 2015, however, the notes recorded that Tony and Joyce intended to leave their estates to each other first, with land then passing to James and Jane after the surviving parent died. The judge considered those documents alongside the final wording of Tony’s 2016 will when determining what it meant.
Jane Hodgson’s proprietary estoppel claim fails over alleged promises about the farm
Jane also argued that she should receive an interest in the property under proprietary estoppel. She said Tony had told her around 1993 that the farm would one day be hers and that she should make her life there. She also relied on assurances from Joyce that she would eventually inherit the property she had lived and worked on. Jane said she had relied on those assurances by working on the farm, increasing the number of animals she kept, opening it to paying visitors, claiming agricultural subsidies, letting parts of the land to other people and contributing to work at the farmhouse. She also argued that she had not pursued other career options and had not made pension provision because of the expectation that she would eventually inherit the property.The judge accepted that Joyce had made promises to Jane about her eventually inheriting part of the property and found those promises sufficiently clear for the first element of a proprietary estoppel claim. However, he found that Jane had failed to establish the necessary causal detrimental reliance. The judgment noted that Jane had been given the farm business and had operated it while living rent-free at the farmhouse and using the land without paying rent. She also received income from agricultural subsidies and from letting part of the arable land. The judge concluded that, even if Jane had relied on the promises, the disadvantages she claimed had to be considered alongside the benefits she had received. He ultimately found that there was no overall detriment caused by reliance on the promises.
Daughter’s Inheritance Act claim over the family property also fails
Jane’s final claim was brought under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, which allows certain family members to seek reasonable financial provision from a deceased person’s estate. The judge rejected Jane’s claim under the Act, alongside her arguments under the will and proprietary estoppel. The ruling therefore left her without the property interest she had sought from her father’s estate. The property at the centre of the dispute covers 32.825 acres and includes Wyville Farm, farmland and a number of buildings. A jointly appointed expert valued the property as a whole at £1.075 million as of October 2020 and £1.25 million as of June 2025. The judgment separately considers Wyville Hall and James’s Land in determining how the various interests in the property were held and what happened to them after Tony’s death.In its final conclusions, the court found that the relevant property, excluding Wyville Hall, had been held by Tony and Joyce as joint tenants in law and equity immediately before Tony’s death. Tony’s 2016 will also provided for his residue to pass to Joyce, while the specific gifts of Jane’s Land and James’s Land were conditional on Joyce predeceasing him. Jane’s proprietary estoppel claim failed because she had not established the required causal detrimental reliance, while her claim under the Inheritance Act 1975 also failed. The case illustrates the difficulty of establishing a claim to family property where informal promises conflict with later legal documents and the ownership structure of the land. In reaching his decision, the judge considered Tony’s final will, earlier solicitor’s attendance notes, the legal ownership of the property and the evidence surrounding Jane’s alleged reliance on promises about her future inheritance.
What happens to the £1.25 million Yorkshire property
The property at the centre of the dispute covers around 32.825 acres and includes Wyville Farm, farmland and a number of buildings. The jointly appointed expert, Ashley Dodgson of GSC Greys, valued the property as a whole at £1.075 million as of October 2020 and £1.25 million as of June 2025. The valuation included separate assessments for parts of the property, including the farmhouse, Stackyard, farm buildings and fields. In his final conclusions, Judge Davis-White KC held that the property, leaving aside Wyville Hall, was held by Tony and Joyce as joint tenants in law and equity immediately before Tony’s death. He also confirmed that Tony’s 2016 will gave the residue of his estate to Joyce and that the specific gifts of Jane’s Land and James’s Land would only operate if Joyce had died before him. Jane’s proprietary estoppel claim failed because she had not established causal detrimental reliance, while her Inheritance Act claim also failed.
