The plaintiff and defendant lived together but were not married. The plaintiff spent some of a legacy she received on living expenses and supervised minor building works to the family home. She claimed an interest in it.
Held: Millett J said: ‘If this were California, this would be a claim for palimony, but it is England and it is not. English law recognises neither the term nor the obligation to which it gives effect. In this country a husband has a legal obligation to support his wife even if they are living apart. A man has no legal obligation to support his mistress even if they are living together. Accordingly, the Plaintiff does not claim to be supported by the Defendant but brings a claim to a proprietary interest in his business and his home.’ The works did not constitute a detriment on which she could rely: ‘Any wife or mistress would do the same. Only a lawyer versed in the authorities but lacking all sense of proportion would consider that such conduct gave her any kind of proprietary interest in the house.’
Judges:
Millett J
Citations:
[1990] 2 FLR 505
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL 30-Jul-2008
The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Trusts, Family
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.276433