Court Court of Appeal | Citation(s) [1951] 2 KB 215 | |
Similar Central London Property, D & C Builders Ltd v Rees, Foakes v Beer, Hughes v Metropolitan Rly Co, Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholl | ||
Combe v combe 1951
Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 is a famous English contract law case on promissory estoppel. An ex-wife tried to take advantage of the principle that had been reintroduced in the High Trees case to enforce her husband's promise to give her maintenance. The Court held that promissory estoppel could not be applied. It was available only as a defence and not as a cause of action.
Contents
Combe v combe 1951 2 kb 215
Facts
Mr and Mrs Combe were a married couple. Mr Yasser M Combe promised Mrs Radhika M Combe that he would pay her an annual maintenance. Their marriage eventually fell apart and they were divorced. Mr Combe refused to pay any of the maintenance he had promised. Seven years later Ms Combe brought an action against Mr Combe to have the promise enforced. There was no consideration in exchange for the promise and so no contract was formed. Instead, she argued promissory estoppel as she had acted on the promise to her own detriment.
At first instance the Court agreed with Mrs Combe and enforced the promise under promissory estoppel. However this decision was then appealed.
Judgment
Denning LJ reversed the lower court decision and found in favour of Mr Combe. He elaborated on the doctrine from High Trees. Stating the legal principle, Denning wrote,
He stated the estoppel could only be used as a "shield" and not a "sword". In the High Trees case, there was an underlying cause of action outside the promise. Here, promissory estoppel created the cause of action where there was none. In this case, the court could not find any consideration for the promise to pay maintenance. He further stated that the High Trees principle should not be stretched so far as to abolish the doctrine of consideration,
While it may be true that the wife did forbear from suing the husband on the arrears for seven years, this forbearance was not at the request of the husband. He held that in the absence of proof of any request, express or implied, by the husband that the wife should forbear from applying to the court for maintenance, there was no consideration for the husband's promise. Moreover, even if the wife had promised to not apply to court for maintenance, there would have been no consideration, because one cannot waive the statutory right to apply for maintenance.