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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
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