Curley v Parkes [2005] 1 P & CR DG 15
Purchase price resulting trust of home; when trust takes effect; whether it can be altered subsequently.
Facts
Curley and Parkes cohabited as a couple from 1999. In 2000 Parkes sold her existing home and purchased a house in Richmond with the sale proceeds, a mortgage in her own name, and her own savings. The property was registered in her sole name and Curley contributed nothing to the purchase price. They held a joint bank account from which the mortgage instalments were paid. In 2001 Curley received a relocation package from his employer. Parkes bought a new property with a mortgage in her sole name. Curley made payments into Parkes account, and when the relationship ended he claimed a half share in the house.
Issues
Curley argued there was an express agreement between the parties that they should hold the beneficial title to the property in equal shares. In the alternative, he claimed such an agreement should be inferred from the circumstances, and that a constructive trust should be found in his favour. He also contended a purchase price resulting trust should have been found to have arisen because of the payments he made to Parkes after the purchase of the property. Parkes contended no resulting trust arose, because such payments as she received from Curley were made after the property had been purchased.
Decision/Outcome
Curley’s claim failed. A purchase price resulting trust takes effect and crystallises at the time of its creation when the property is purchased, and ordinarily cannot be changed afterwards. Such agreements as were reached between the parties were not intended to have legal consequences, and Curley had not directly contributed to the purchase price and, therefore, no resulting trust could have arisen.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate as a statement of the law on purchase price resulting trusts as established in Curley v Parkes [2005] 1 P & CR DG 15. The core principle — that a purchase price resulting trust crystallises at the moment of purchase and cannot ordinarily be altered by subsequent payments — continues to reflect established law.
However, readers should be aware of important subsequent developments in the broader law of beneficial interests in the family home. In Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 and Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, the Supreme Court and House of Lords significantly developed the law on constructive trusts and the quantification of beneficial shares in jointly occupied properties, particularly for cohabitants. These cases confirmed that, for disputes between cohabitants, the constructive trust (and the common intention it requires) is generally the more appropriate vehicle than the resulting trust, and that the resulting trust has a reduced role in the domestic consumer context. Readers should therefore treat this case primarily as authority on the specific and limited question of when a purchase price resulting trust arises and crystallises, rather than as a general guide to resolving beneficial interest disputes between cohabitants, where Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott now provide the leading framework.
