Delaforce v Simpson-Cook

The case of *Delaforce v Simpson-Cook* concerned a dispute following the break-up of a marriage, where the former wife sought to enforce a promise made by her former husband regarding a house property. The promise, made during property settlement negotiations and noted in consent orders of the Family Court, was that the husband would leave the house to the wife in his will, in exchange for her allowing him to retain the property. The husband's last will, however, bequeathed the property to another beneficiary. The former wife appealed the executor's decision to uphold the will, leading to the matter being heard by the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the husband's promise had created a proprietary estoppel, and if so, whether equity should enforce the wife's expectation arising from that promise. Specifically, the court had to determine if the wife's reliance on the promise was reasonable and if she had suffered a detriment as a result of that reliance, thereby justifying equitable intervention.

The Court of Appeal found that the wife had indeed relied on the husband's unambiguous assurance that she would inherit the property. This reliance was deemed reasonable, particularly as she had forgone the opportunity to have the Family Court's consent orders specifically incorporate and enforce the husband's promise. The court held that this relinquishment constituted a sufficient detriment. Applying the principles of proprietary estoppel, the court concluded that equity would prima facie enforce the wife's reasonable expectation based on the clear promise made by the husband, and there was no compelling reason to depart from this principle.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. While the wife's claim under the Family Provision Act was dismissed, the court otherwise dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that the husband's promise had created an enforceable equitable right.