Dyer v Dyer (1788) 2 Cox Eq Cas 92
Presumed resulting trust; contribution to purchase price; equitable ownership.
Facts
Mr Dyer paid the full purchase monies for certain properties in Wiltshire, and the properties were placed in the names of himself, his wife and eldest son jointly. His wife predeceased him and then Mr Dyer died, bequeathing all his interests in these properties to the claimant, his youngest son. The youngest son sought to take possession of the properties on the basis that his father had paid the purchase price in its entirety, and there was, therefore, a resulting trust in his favour.
Issues
The eldest son’s name was inserted in the grant as the joint legal owner of the properties in Wiltshire and, as such, he argued that the land had been advanced to him by his father, and he was beneficially entitled to the estates in their entirety. His younger brother argued that since his father had advanced the whole of the purchase price of the properties, he remained beneficially entitled to the entire equitable interests in the properties and, as such, the bequest to the younger son took effect and the properties would pass to him.
Decision/Outcome
Where a party provides the purchase price of property in its entirety, then there is a presumption that he retains the beneficial interest in the property in its entirety, by virtue of a resulting trust, if there is no other evidence to rebut this presumption. The father had paid the full purchase price and, therefore, he retained the full equitable title and the eldest son held the legal title on trust for his father.
Updated 21 March 2026
This article accurately states the legal principles established in Dyer v Dyer (1788) 2 Cox Eq Cas 92. The case remains a foundational authority for the doctrine of resulting trusts arising from contribution to the purchase price of property, and the core principle described — that a person who pays the full purchase price of property retains the beneficial interest by way of presumed resulting trust, absent evidence to rebut the presumption — continues to be good law.
However, readers should be aware of subsequent legal developments that qualify the practical importance of this principle in the context of residential property. In Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, the House of Lords held that where property is conveyed into joint names, the starting point is that the beneficial interest follows the legal title (i.e. joint beneficial ownership in equal shares), and only in exceptional circumstances will the court depart from this. The Supreme Court affirmed and refined this approach in Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53. These decisions significantly affect how resulting trust principles operate in domestic property disputes between cohabitants, and the presumed resulting trust based purely on financial contribution now plays a reduced role in that context. The principle in Dyer v Dyer itself remains valid, but students should read it alongside these later authorities.
