In [ case ], the claimant had an affair. She became pregnant, left her husband and moved into a house owned by her lover, although they did not live together. She did not work after the baby was born, but did some improvements and repairs to the house over the years. After 10 years the relationship ended, and the claimant claimed the fee simple. The court held that although the claimant had suffered a detriment, in that she had given up her home, this was not done in reliance on any assurance as to property rights made by her lover. The court held that her actions were the normal actions of someone who is unhappily married. She had given up her home with her husband because she wanted to live with her lover, not in any expectation of property rights, and this could not be used in an estoppel claim.
Answer
Coombes v Smith [1986] 1 WLR 808
Tags
#land #law #proprietary-estoppel
Question
In [ case ], the claimant had an affair. She became pregnant, left her husband and moved into a house owned by her lover, although they did not live together. She did not work after the baby was born, but did some improvements and repairs to the house over the years. After 10 years the relationship ended, and the claimant claimed the fee simple. The court held that although the claimant had suffered a detriment, in that she had given up her home, this was not done in reliance on any assurance as to property rights made by her lover. The court held that her actions were the normal actions of someone who is unhappily married. She had given up her home with her husband because she wanted to live with her lover, not in any expectation of property rights, and this could not be used in an estoppel claim.
Answer
?
Tags
#land #law #proprietary-estoppel
Question
In [ case ], the claimant had an affair. She became pregnant, left her husband and moved into a house owned by her lover, although they did not live together. She did not work after the baby was born, but did some improvements and repairs to the house over the years. After 10 years the relationship ended, and the claimant claimed the fee simple. The court held that although the claimant had suffered a detriment, in that she had given up her home, this was not done in reliance on any assurance as to property rights made by her lover. The court held that her actions were the normal actions of someone who is unhappily married. She had given up her home with her husband because she wanted to live with her lover, not in any expectation of property rights, and this could not be used in an estoppel claim.
Answer
Coombes v Smith [1986] 1 WLR 808
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it In Coombes v Smith [1986] 1 WLR 808, the claimant had an affair. She became pregnant, left her husband and moved into a house owned by her lover, although they did not live together. She did not work after t
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.