Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 (CA)

Facts

• The case involved a husband and wife undergoing divorce proceedings.
• The husband promised to pay the wife £100 annually as a tax-free maintenance payment.
• The promise was not supported by any formal consideration from the wife; she did not offer anything in return.
• The husband did not request the wife to forbear from applying to the court for maintenance.
• The wife, aware of the husband's financial situation, did not initially claim the promised payment.
• Several years later, the wife brought legal action to claim arrears under the agreement.
• The central issue was whether the husband was legally bound by his promise and if the wife could enforce the payment based on promissory estoppel.

Issues

1. Whether promissory estoppel can create a new cause of action in the absence of consideration.
2. Whether the wife's forbearance from applying to court for maintenance constituted valid consideration.
3. Whether promissory estoppel could be invoked to enforce the husband's promise as a contractual obligation.

Decision

• The court held that promissory estoppel cannot create a cause of action where no consideration exists.
• The wife's forbearance did not amount to valid consideration because the husband did not expressly request it.
• The husband's promise was unenforceable as a contractual claim due to the absence of consideration.
• The doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be used by the wife as the basis for her claim; it is only available as a defence (a "shield," not a "sword").

Legal Principles

• Promissory estoppel operates to prevent a party from asserting their strict legal rights only where it would be inequitable to do so, provided the other party has relied on the promise.
• The doctrine cannot replace the requirement for consideration in contract formation.
• Promissory estoppel serves only as a defence to stop a party from enforcing full legal rights, not as a means to create new rights or causes of action.
• The necessity of consideration is a fundamental element of contract law and is not displaced by equitable principles.

Conclusion

Combe v Combe confirmed that promissory estoppel may only be used as a defence and cannot create a new cause of action in the absence of consideration, thereby reinforcing the essential requirement of consideration in contract formation and the limited function of the doctrine within English law.