Bull v Bull [1955] 1 QB 234
Constructive trusts arising from join tenancies.
Facts
A mother and son jointly purchased a property, however the son contributed a greater proportion of the original purchase price and took on full legal title to the house. Both parties intended to live in the property on the agreement that the mother would occupy two rooms of the house and the son being the principle user of the remainder. After some time the parties had a disagreement and the son subsequently asked his mother to cease occupation of the property
Issues
Whether the mother was entitled to continue occupying the house until it was sold, on the grounds that she was a tenant in common and thus entitled to have her co-possession of the property recognised. Further, how ought the law approach ownership where the parties in question have contributed unequally.
Decision/Outcome
Here, the Court held, with Lord Denning presiding, that the son was holding the property jointly on trust for his mother and himself and that the presumption of sale should not interfere with the mother’s right of occupation before then. Thus, where property is owned by tenants in common, all tenants are entitled to enjoy the benefits of the property and thus a constructive trust can be identified as existing. Further, ownership was considered generally to reflect each parties’ contributions to the purchase price, where there was no significant factor to indicate otherwise. Significantly, the legal principle of fairness was focused upon by the Court.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary is broadly accurate as a description of the 1955 Court of Appeal decision in Bull v Bull [1955] 1 QB 234. The core principle — that where legal title is held by one party but another has contributed to the purchase price, a resulting or constructive trust arises reflecting the parties’ respective contributions — remains good law.
However, readers should be aware of significant subsequent developments. The Law of Property Act 1925 framework under which this case was decided has been substantially supplemented by the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA), which replaced the old trust for sale regime. Under TOLATA, the court exercises a broader discretion when deciding whether to order a sale and must consider factors including the purpose of the trust and the interests of all beneficiaries. The automatic presumption of sale that applied under the pre-1996 regime no longer applies in the same way.
Additionally, the law on quantification of beneficial shares under resulting and constructive trusts of the family home has been significantly developed by the Supreme Court in Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 and Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53. Those cases — particularly in the context of shared homes — moved the courts toward a broader search for the parties’ common intention rather than strict arithmetic contributions, especially where the property is jointly owned. Bull v Bull itself involved a sole legal owner holding on trust, and the resulting trust approach based on financial contributions remains relevant in that context, but students should read the case alongside the later Supreme Court authorities and TOLATA when considering the current legal position.
