Introduction
The case of Bull v Bull [1955] 1 QB 234 deals with legal disputes arising from joint property purchases where legal title is held by one party. This situation often leads to a resulting trust, which ensures ownership is divided fairly when contributions to the purchase price do not match legal title. Key requirements for creating a resulting trust include payments toward the purchase and no evidence showing intent to gift or loan funds. The Court of Appeal’s ruling in Bull v Bull gives clear guidance on using these principles and stating beneficiary rights under such trusts.
The Facts of Bull v Bull
The dispute involved a property bought jointly by a mother and son. The son, who paid more toward the purchase price, held sole legal title. The mother also contributed part of the cost under an agreement allowing her to live in part of the property. A later disagreement led the son to try to evict her.
The Court of Appeal's Decision
The Court of Appeal ruled that the mother’s payment toward the purchase price created a resulting trust, even though the son held legal title. This confirmed her right to a share matching her contribution. As a result, the son could not evict her, as she held beneficial ownership rather than just the right to live there. The decision made clear that equitable ownership under a resulting trust works separately from legal title.
Implications for Joint Ownership Arrangements
Bull v Bull offers a method for resolving disputes in joint ownership where legal title and financial contributions differ. The case shows that resulting trusts apply even between family members, stressing that payments decide ownership shares regardless of relationships. This idea matches earlier rulings like Dyer v Dyer (1788) 2 Cox Eq Cas 92, which prioritizes purchase contributions when deciding equitable interests.
Resulting Trusts and the Presumption of Advancement
The judgment also discusses the presumption of advancement, which assumes gifts in certain relationships (e.g., parent to child). However, Bull v Bull shows that this presumption can be set aside by evidence of a different intent, such as agreements to share ownership based on payments. Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777 further explains how to challenge this presumption, needing clear evidence of mutual intent about ownership.
Practical Steps for Joint Purchases
Following Bull v Bull, joint buyers should put ownership agreements in writing. Agreements should list each party’s contributions and intended shares. Clear records help avoid disputes and show intent, reducing the need to rely on resulting trusts or legal assumptions. Cases like Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 show how written agreements help decide shares, especially for unmarried co-owners.
Conclusion
Bull v Bull remains a key case in property law, explaining rules on resulting trusts and joint ownership. The decision states that purchase contributions decide equitable shares, even if legal title is with one party. Alongside later cases like Stack v Dowden, it gives practical advice for co-buyers, stressing written agreements to prevent conflicts and ensure fair ownership. Knowing Bull v Bull helps legal professionals and buyers manage joint ownership issues and protect equitable property rights.
