Bennet v Bennet (1879) 10 Ch. D. 474
Equity – Presumption of Advancement – Gift – Bankruptcy – Resulting Trust – Obligation
Facts
This case concerned a transaction between a mother and her son and the presumption of advancement in equity. Mother, Ann Bennet, wanted to help her son who was in some financial difficulty. Consequently, she gave Philip Bennet £300 in the way of a loan. Unfortunately, the son still went bankrupt and could not pay his debts. The trustee in bankruptcy tried to claim what was left of his money.
Issues
The mother argued that there could not be a presumption of advancement, as she had only loaned her son the money and this sum of £300 should be returned to her. The issue in this case was whether there was a presumption of advancement between the mother and son or if the money was held on a resulting trust for the mother.
Decision/Outcome
The court held that based on the evidence presented in this case there was no presumption of advancement between Ann Bennet and Philip Bennet. The money she had given his son was a loan to help him deal with his financial troubles. In addition, the courts stated that in equity, there was no presumption of advancement between mother and her child, as there was no moral obligation for a mother to provide for her child. This could only be a father or a male figure. Thus, the court upheld Ann Bennet’s claim and the £300 sum was held on a resulting trust for the mother.
Updated 19 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the facts, issues, and outcome of Bennet v Bennet (1879) 10 Ch. D. 474 as a matter of legal history. The case remains good authority for the historical common law position that the presumption of advancement did not apply between a mother and child.
However, readers should be aware of two significant legal developments that affect the broader legal context in which this case sits.
First, section 199 of the Equality Act 2010 was enacted to abolish the presumption of advancement entirely in English law, which would have removed the gender distinction the case illustrates. However, section 199 has never been brought into force and remains on the statute book unimplemented. The presumption of advancement therefore continues to apply in English law in its traditional form, meaning this case retains legal relevance.
Second, the Supreme Court in Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 and Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 has substantially developed the law of resulting and constructive trusts in the context of shared homes, though these decisions do not directly alter the rule stated in Bennet v Bennet regarding the mother-child relationship.
Students should note that the article’s statement that there was “no moral obligation for a mother to provide for her child” reflects the Victorian judicial reasoning of the period and should be understood in its historical context rather than as a statement of current social or legal policy.
