Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
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