This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Court of Appeal, unreported transcript, 21 July 1993.
See, e.g., Katherine O'Donovan,Sexual Divisions in Law (London: Weidenfield and Nicholas, 1985); Fran Olsen, “The Family and the Market: A Study of Ideology and Legal Reform”,Harvard Law Review 96/3 (1983), 1497; Nadine Taub and Elizabeth M. Schneider, “Woman's Subordination and the Role of Law”, in David Kairys, ed.,The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique (New York: Pantheon Books, 1990), 151.
See Alice Kessler-Harris,A Woman's Wage: Historical Meanings and Social Consequences (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1990), 62–67.
Veronica Breechey, “Rethinking the Definition of Work: Gender and Work”, in Jane Jenson, Elisabeth Hagen and Ceallaigh Reddy, eds.,Feminization of the Labour Force (Cambridge: Polity, 1988), 45.
Veronica Breechey, “The sexual division of labour and the labour process, a critical assessment of Braverman”, in S. Wood, ed.,The Degradation of Work?: Skill, deskilling and the labour process (London: Hutchinson, 1982), 70.
Anne-Marie Duane-Richard, “Gender Relations and Female Labour: A Consideration of Sociological Categories”, in Jane Jenson, Elisabeth Hagen and Caellaigh Reddy,supra n.4, at 276.
Harriet Bradley,Men's Work, Women's Work (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989), 73–74.
William Smart,Studies in Economics (London: MacMillan, 1985), 34.
For an exploration of the interplay between this history and the contemporary position of women, see Janet Hickman, “Gender in Historical and Development Studies: An Agenda for the 1990s?”,Journal of Gender Studies 3/1 (1994), 5.
M. Barret and M. MacIntosh, “‘The Family Wage’: Some Problems for Socialists and Feminists”,Capital and Class 2 (1980), 51–72.
Claudia Goldin,Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 212.
Cf. Carol Smart, “Feminist Jurisprudence”, in Peter FitzPatrick, ed.,Dangerous Supplements: Resistance and Renewal In Jurisprudence (London: Pluto Press, 1991), 133 at 155.
Leo Flynn, “The Missing Body of Mary McGee: The Constitution of Woman in Irish Constitutional Adjudication”,Journal of Gender Studies 2/2 (1993), 236, 240–242.
Supra n.1, at 1.
Ibid, at 3.
Idem.
Seesupra n.1, at 6–8.
Ibid, at 9.
Ibid, at 19.
Ibid, at 6.
Ibid, at 5.
[1975] 1 W.L.R. 1338.
[1986] 1 Ch. 638.
Ibid., at 648.
[1986] 1 W.L.R. 1498.
Ibid., at 1505.
InGreasley v.Cooke, [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1306, a woman was held to have acted to her detriment by staying on in a house which she had originally entered as a paid servant, to look after it, her lover and his mentally ill sister unpaid. However, this case is not directly in point because she had been promised only a licence to occupy the house for the rest of her life, not a beneficial interest in it. It was not her lover who was denying the promise, but his relatives who became entitled to the house on his death. Arguably,Hammond v.Mitchell, [1991] 1 W.L.R. 1127, is also an authority for this view. One of the possible explanations of Waite J.'s decision, that Vicky Mitchell had acted to her detriment, is that she had helped with her lover's business activities unpaid. The judgment, however, is not at all clear on this point and this is probably not the most natural interpretation of it. See Anna Lawson, “Acquiring a Beneficial Interest in the Family Home:Hammond v.Mitchell”, The Conveyancer (1992), 218.
Grant v.Edwards, supra n.25, at 648;Coombes v.Smith, [1986] 1 W.L.R. 808, at 820–21;Lloyds Bank v.Rosset, [1991] 1 A.C. 107.
Supra n.1, at 7–8.
Ibid, at 9.
Ibid, at 10.
Ibid, at 6.
Coombes v.Smith, supra n.30, at 820–21per Jonathon Parker Q.C.; cf.Grant v.Edwards, supra n.25, at 648per Nourse L.J. that a woman could be reasonably expected to go and live with her lover were she not to have an interest in his home.
Hammond v.Mitchell, supra n.29.
Eves v.Eves, supra n.24.
Cooke v.Head, [1972] 1 W.L.R. 518.
Grant v.Edwards, supra n.25.
Supra n.24.
Supra n.25.
Supra n.1, at 2.
Idem.
Supra n.25.
See, e.g.Lloyds Bank v.Rosset, supra n.30, at 131.
See, e.g.supra n.27, at 1505.
Grant v.Edwards, supra n.25.
Pascoe v.Turner, [1979] 1 W.L.R. 431.
Eves v.Eves, supra n.24.
Cooke v.Head, supra n.38.
Coombes v.Smith, supra n.30, and cf. Nourse L.J. inGrant v.Edwards, supra n.25, at 648, “[I]n the absence of evidence, the law is not so cynical as to infer that a woman will only go to live with a man to whom she is not married if she understands that she is to have an interest in their home.”
Coombes v.Smith, supra n.30.
Lloyds Bank v.Rossett, supra n.30.
Cooke v.Head, supra n.38. at 519per Denning M.R.; See alsoEves v.Eves, supra n.24, at 1340per Denning M.R. (“... more than many wives ...”).
Lloyds Bank v.Rossett, supra n.30, at 131,per Lord Bridge.
See, e.g., Judith C. Brown, “Lesbian Sexuality in Medieval and Early Modern Europe”, in Martine Duberman, Martha Vicinus and George Chauncey, eds.,Hidden from History (London: Penguin, 1991), 67; Jeffery Weeks,Against Nature (London: Rivers Orm Press, 1991), 68–85.
Cf. Tinsley v.Milligan, [1993] 3 W.L.R. 126. Though this case concerned a dispute between two formerly cohabiting lesbians, the detrimental reliance issue did not arise because the case was decided on resulting trust principles.
See, generally, Lesbian History Group, Introduction, inNot a Passing Glance: Reclaiming Lesbians in History 1840–1985 (London: Woman's Press, 1989), 1.
Lillian Faderman,Surpassing the Love of Men: Romantic friendship and love between women from the Renaissance to the present (London: Women's Press, 1985)
Supra n.27.
Mary C. Corley and Hans O. Mauksch, “Registered Nurses, Gender and Commitment”, in Eleanor M. Miller, Hans O. Mauksch, and Anne Stathem, eds.,The Worth of Women's Work: A Qualitative Synthesis (New York: State University of New York Press, 1988), 135.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Flynn, L., Lawson, A. Gender, sexuality and the doctrine of detrimental reliance. Feminist Legal Stud 3, 105–121 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01103683
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01103683