Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles
Authors

PROPERTY: MacDonald v Frost [2009] EWHC 2276 (Ch)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:06 PM
Slug : macdonald-v-frost-2009-ewhc-2276-ch
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 5, 2009, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 85887

(Chancery Division; Geraldine Andrews QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court); 5 October 2009)

In the same year in which the deceased's two daughters began paying £100 per month to the deceased and his wife, each received money or property to the value of £20,000.

After the deceased's wife died, the deceased remarried. The monthly payments from the daughters continued to be made until the death of the deceased.

In his will, the deceased left his estate (valued at £231,000) to his second wife. The two daughters claimed that the deceased's estate was bound by proprietary estoppel, in that the deceased had repeatedly assured them that they would benefit from his estate.

Dismissing the claim, there had been no express assurances or promises after the deceased's re-marriage. The payments of £100 per month had been an essential and integral part of the arrangement whereby each claimant had received cash or property to the value of £20,000.

Taking everything into consideration, there was no particular reason for the deceased and the first wife to have made any specific promise or assurance to the daughters that they would receive the balance of their inheritance if they continued to make regular payments during the remainder of the couple's lifetimes.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from