Analysis
The long-term partner and customary wife of the deceased claimed that a proprietary estoppel arose in her favour as to the matrimonial home. At first instance, the County Court awarded her a life interest in the property in satisfaction of her equity. On appeal, the High Court upheld the award of the life interest finding that she had detrimentally relied on assurances given by her customary husband, by not purchasing a house of her own. She was not required to demonstrate in great detail how she would have acquired such a house – by virtue of the representations of the deceased she had never applied her mind to it. The court also ruled that renovations paid for by her son and his wife as a gift to her were a detrimental reliance on her part since, in benefiting from her son’s bounty in the form of renovations, she forewent the opportunity to enjoy the same bounty in another way. The court held that any benefit she had received based on the assurances, in residing in the matrimonial home, did not outweigh or attenuate her detriment. During the deceased’s life, at least, she had lived in the house simply by virtue of being the deceased’s customary wife and not by reason of the representations that had been made. Any period of residence following the deceased’s death was not a countervailing benefit, having regard to the strength of the expectations reasonably relied upon, and the time for which they had been held.
JUDGMENT MR JUSTICE ZACAROLI: Introduction [1] This is an appeal against the decision dated 26 September 2019 of HHJ Hellmann sitting in the County Court at Central London following a trial of the claimant’s claim for possession of a property in Golders Green, London (the ‘Property’) and for mesne profits. [2] The claimant is the …Continue reading "Anaghara v Anaghara & ors WTLR(w) 2021-01"