Who? Esther Woolford, partner and solicitor-advocate, Clarke Willmott LLP, Taunton.

Why is she in the news? The firm represented farmer Andrew Guest in a long-running and landmark inheritance dispute with his parents.

Thoughts on the case: ‘The Supreme Court’s ruling resolves the question of the correct approach to the determination of remedy in the law of proprietary estoppel which will hopefully assist parties to resolve disputes without the need for court proceedings. In Guest v Guest, a classic farming proprietary estoppel dispute, our client Andrew’s parents put in place a series of measures [that would have left] Andrew, in his 50s, with no home, no job, no savings and no pension, despite a lifetime of hard work.

[The judgment states that Andrew and his father fell out in 2014.]

‘Thankfully, the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, were prepared to use their powers to prevent this clear injustice and consequently Andrew will receive his promised inheritance. As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision this will either be paid now as an accelerated sum or on his parents’ deaths.

‘Aside from being a significant decision in this area of law and of great interest to practitioners, the case also highlights the need for those involved in or contemplating bringing inheritance disputes to get expert legal advice as soon as possible so as to avoid a long-running legal battle.’

Dealing with the media: ‘Given the significance of this case in proprietary estoppel law, it has been subject to the media’s attention since court proceedings began in 2017. Predominantly, this has concerned the amount awarded (and the family relationship breakdown), rather than the legal complexities, with the subtleties of proprietary estoppel being lost. Being interviewed by the Sunday Times was a particularly nerve-racking experience but certainly a career-defining one. We have worked closely with our client as trusted advisers to ensure that the case was given the coverage it deserved while being very mindful to ensure that the tragic breakdown of the family relationship was not sensationalised.’

Career high: ‘Securing the farm for my client in the farming partnership case following the Court of Appeal judgment in Drake v Harvey [2011], which was also my client and her young family’s home. This was really meaningful for me as it was so impactful on my client’s life and I felt that I was not only a trusted adviser but had also become a friend.’

Career low: ‘The outcome in the flooding case of King & Others v Environment Agency [2018] which, despite establishing the principle that Article 1, Protocol 1 of the Human Rights Act [1998] applied to the conduct and policymaking of the EA, was not ultimately successful for my farming clients, whose land was regularly inundated with significant volumes of water.’

Topics