Respondent and deceased in quasi-matrimonial relationship — Deceased promising property to respondent — Respondent ending relationship — Whether entering into quasi-matrimonial relationship constituting “detriment” for purposes of establishing proprietary estoppel — Whether promise conditional on parties remaining in relationship
The appellant was the executor of an estate. The respondent and the deceased had lived together for a period of just over three years. During that time, the deceased had written a letter to his lawyer indicating that, upon his death, he wished the respondent to receive a life interest in his houseboat and the outright ownership of a flat in Jamaica. He had provided the respondent with a copy of the letter, and had also informed the appellant that he intended to make provision for the respondent in his will. However, the respondent had ended the relationship some time prior to the deceased’s death, and such provision had not been made.
At first instance, the judge awarded the respondent £50,000 and the ownership of the property in Jamaica, or a sum in lieu. Both parties appealed.
The appellant maintained, inter alia, that: (i) the quasi-matrimonial character of the relationship did not support the respondent’s contention that she had acted to her detriment in maintaining it; (ii) the promise made by the deceased had been a testamentary promise conditional upon the parties remaining together, which he had been entitled to rescind since the respondent had terminated the relationship; and (iii) the judge had erred in awarding the respondent a sum larger than that which he had considered would constitute reasonable provision if her claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Defendants) Act 1995 had been successful. The respondent argued that, in line with the decision in Jennings v Rice [2002] EWCA Civ 159; [2002] WTLR 367, where specific assurances had been made, the court should fulfil them specifically.
Held: The appeal and the cross-appeal were dismissed.
1. In general terms, the detriment suffered by entering into a quasi-matrimonial relationship was balanced by the benefits inferred by such a relationship and would be insufficient to sustain a claim. However, each case turned upon its own circumstances. The demands of the deceased upon the respondent had been beyond those characterised as part and parcel of an ordinary relationship and had amounted to a detriment sufficient to support the claim.
2. Situations could arise in which a promise made by one party in a matrimonial or quasi-matrimonial situation was conditional upon the parties remaining together. The judge had made no finding on that issue but had ruled only as to whether such a promise had been made. It was not open to the court to challenge that finding.
3. The judge’s conclusion on the claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Defendants) Act 1995 had not been predicated on the same considerations as his conclusions relating to the proprietary estoppel claim. Therefore, there was no requirement for parity of award under the two headings.
4. An award made following the establishment of proprietary estoppel should be no more than necessary to protect against unconscionable conduct, and the remedy was to be proportionate to the detriment suffered. The judge was entitled to treat the expectation that the parties would live together for the rest of their lives as a special factor that deprived the respondent of any expectation to have the deceased’s assurances enforced to the letter.
John McDonnell QC and Barbara Rich (instructed by Lee & Pembertons) appeared for the appellant; Kevin Garnett QC (instructed by Collyer-Bristow) appeared for the respondent.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
