Bull v Bull [1955] 1 QB 234 (CA)

Facts

• The case involved a property purchased jointly by a mother and her son.
• The son contributed more to the purchase price and the property’s legal title was registered solely in his name.
• The mother contributed part of the purchase price and was permitted to reside in a portion of the property.
• After a disagreement, the son attempted to evict his mother from the property.

Issues

1. Whether the mother’s contribution to the purchase price granted her a beneficial interest in the property through a resulting trust, despite the son holding sole legal title.
2. Whether the son was entitled to evict his mother or if her rights as a beneficiary of a resulting trust prevented this.
3. How the presumption of advancement applies when assessing ownership between closely related parties who both contribute to a purchase.
4. What practical steps can joint purchasers take to clarify their respective beneficial interests.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal determined that the mother’s financial contribution created a resulting trust, granting her an equitable interest proportionate to her payment.
• The son, although holding sole legal title, could not evict the mother because she retained beneficial ownership in the property.
• The court clarified that equitable ownership under a resulting trust operates independently of the legal title.
• The presumption of advancement could be rebutted if there was clear evidence of intent to share ownership according to contributions rather than intending a gift.

Legal Principles

• A resulting trust arises when parties contribute towards the purchase price but legal title is held in one name, unless evidence shows a gift or loan was intended.
• The presumption of advancement, which presumes a gift in certain close relationships, can be displaced by evidence indicating an intention to share beneficial ownership in proportion to contributions.
• The decision confirmed that resulting trusts may apply between family members, not just between unrelated joint purchasers.
• Written agreements and clear records of contributions are advisable to prevent disputes and to provide evidence of intended ownership shares, as later emphasized in cases like Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17.
• Earlier rulings, such as Dyer v Dyer (1788) 2 Cox Eq Cas 92, affirm that contributions towards purchase price are determinative of equitable interests.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Bull v Bull established that equitable ownership based on resulting trusts can arise from financial contributions to a property's purchase, even where only one party holds legal title. This ensures that beneficial interests reflect actual contributions unless contrary intention is proven, providing important guidance for joint ownership arrangements.