Combe v Combe [1951]

Court: Court of Appeal

Facts: Mr Yasser M Combe promised his ex-wife, Mrs Radhika M Combe, annual maintenance payments following their divorce. After seven years, Mrs Combe sued to enforce this promise, relying on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, as there was no consideration for the promise.

Issue: Whether promissory estoppel can be used as a cause of action to enforce a promise lacking consideration, or if it is limited to a defense against a claim.

Held: The Court of Appeal, led by Denning LJ, held that promissory estoppel cannot be used as a cause of action. Denning LJ clarified that promissory estoppel serves as a defense to prevent a party from going back on a promise once it has been relied upon, but it cannot create a cause of action where none exists.

Key Judicial Statement: Denning LJ stated, “Seeing that the principle never stands alone as giving a cause of action in itself, it can never do away with the necessity of consideration when that is an essential part of the cause of action. The doctrine of consideration is too firmly fixed to be overthrown by a side-wind.”

💡 Leveluplaw: This case highlights that promissory estoppel is not a standalone cause of action but rather a defensive mechanism. It underscores that consideration remains a crucial element in contract law and cannot be bypassed by invoking promissory estoppel alone. The decision reinforces the principle that promises lacking consideration cannot be enforced simply by relying on estoppel.