Coombes v Smith
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1986 |
| Year | 1986 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
10 cases
- Chai Him v Holee Holdings (M) Sdn Bhd
-
Kumari Murphy v (1) Nicholas Courtauld Rayner (2) Aeternus Ltd and Another
...part, in this respect upon the decision of Jonathan Parker QC (as he then was), sitting as a deputy judge of the Chancery Division, in Coombes v Smith [1986] 1 WLR 808 for the proposition that leaving a husband and keeping house for a defendant, not looking for a job, and allowing all bill......
-
PW & Company v Milton Gate Investments Ltd
...2 FLR 1029, at 1031G to 1032B. The reasoning was considered and explained by Mr Jonathan Parker QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge, in Coombes -v- Smith [1986] 1 WLR 808 at 821D to E where he said this: "The decision as it seems to me, was concerned with the presumption of reliance, rather that ......
-
Dr Giuseppe Franco v Dr Elena Sciaroni
...7 In the alternative, the claim was put on the basis of proprietary estoppel. Here, the law is clear: Crabb v. Arun DC [1976] Ch 179 and Coombes v. Smith [1986] 1 WLR 808 at 817H. Although it can be described in a number of different ways, there are essentially four elements to the claim: 7......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
-
Interests in the family home: constructive trusts and estoppel compared
...The constructive trust is thus being imposed simply as a way of giving effect to the remedy, with little apparent significance 35 [1986] 1 W.L.R. 808. As well as rejecting detriment, the court found that no assumption or expectation had been proved on the facts. 36 [1980] 1 W.L.R.1306. 37 S......
-
Estoppel in land law
...Hamilton (1987) 39 W.I.R. 169. 11 Taylors Fashions Ltd. v. Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co. Ltd. [1982] Q.B. 133. 12 [1976] Ch. 179. 13 [1986] 1 W.L.R. 808. As well as rejecting detriment, the court found that no assumption or expectation had been proved on the facts. undertaken because she ......