UK: English High Court Considers Presumption Of Advancement Between Parent And Child In Context Of Parent's Bankruptcy Following Substantial Gifts To Child

Last Updated: 30 July 2019
Article by Joanna Caen, Richard Norridge and William Cheung

In Nicholas Stewart Wood and David John Standish (as the joint trustees in bankruptcy of Karl Eric Watkin) v Kate Rebecca Watkin [2019] EWHC 1311 (Ch), trustees in bankruptcy sought to establish that a bankrupt (the Bankrupt) was the sole beneficial owner of three properties (the Properties), ostensibly purchased by him for his adult daughter. The High Court refused the application and held that the Bankrupt was not the sole beneficial owner of the Properties.

In considering the application, the Judge considered issues regarding the presumption of advancement. This article will focus on two main aspects: firstly, the scope and strength of the presumption of advancement, particularly to adult children financially independent of their parents, and secondly, whether liability under a mortgage used to fund part of the purchase price might be treated as a contribution giving rise to a resulting trust. It will further discuss the alternative claims brought under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA) and the comments made by the judge regarding the written evidence advanced by the applicants.


The Bankrupt was a successful entrepreneur involved in a number of start-ups and listings on the UK stock market. The Bankrupt’s adult daughter described her upbringing to be extremely privileged. She continued to receive a monthly allowance of £320, paid from the joint account of her parents (the Joint Account), until she started paid employment in 2007. The Bankrupt’s children were also able to invest in a number of companies in which he was involved. Any bequests, inter vivos gifts from family members and gains realised from such share sales were paid into the Joint Account.

The Properties were purchased in 2003, 2006 and 2007 and registered in the sole name of the Bankrupt’s adult daughter. The Properties were purchased using funds from the Joint Account, a mortgage advance and funds from a third party. There was no evidence that the Bankrupt was in financial difficulty at the time of any of the purchases.

The bankruptcy order was made in December 2012. The joint trustees in bankruptcy applied for declarations and other relief in respect of the Properties, claiming that the Bankrupt was the sole beneficial owner of such properties at all material times based on resulting trust principles. Alternatively, they claimed that that the transactions defrauded creditors pursuant to section 423 IA, or that the transactions were at an undervalue pursuant to section 339 IA. Issues concerning the strength and scope of the parent/child presumption of advancement arose.


In refusing the application, the Judge identified the current law in relation to the presumption of advancement and assessed whether liability under a mortgage used to fund part of the purchase price might be treated as a contribution giving rise to a resulting trust.

Scope and strength of presumption of advancement

The Judge first noted that the presumption of resulting trust is an important one, but that it could be displaced by a presumption of advancement whereby the intention of a gift is presumed if a father purchases a property in the name of child. However, this presumption may be further rebutted by contrary intention of the parties.

Three important observations as to the scope and strength of the presumption of advancement were made:

Firstly, the presumption is not limited to minor children, as suggested in Pecore v Pecore, 2007 SCC 17. The judge held that Pecore was merely obiter as the presumption in that case was not a necessary consideration due to the evidenced intention of the parties. Even if the decision was not obiter, it did not represent English law. Instead, the judge preferred the comments of Lord Neuberger in Laskar v Laskar [2008] EWCA Civ 347 to the effect that the presumption of advancement between parent and child may exist in relation to a child who is not a minor.

Secondly, the presumption is not only relevant to financially dependent children or situations where the evidence establishes that the parent is under an obligation to provide for the child, as suggested in Musson v Bonner [2010] WTLR 1369 and Purvis v Purvis [2018] EWHC 1458. Although financial dependence is a factor relevant to the strength of the presumption, the historic rationale for the presumption was based on parental affection as well as parental obligation. Whilst the presumption may be weaker and more readily rebuttable in cases of financially independent adult children, this does not mean it does not exist.

Thirdly, the judge rejected the submission that the strength of the presumption was ‘very weak’ in the modern age, holding that Shephard v Cartwright [1953] 1 W.L.R. 460 remained good law notwithstanding the obiter comments made in Lavelle v Lavelle [2004] EWCA Civ 223. The judge distinguished the factual matrix of matrimonial property in Lavelle from the present case, noting that the husband/wife and parent/child contexts will often differ in material respects. Courts should be slow to extrapolate the treatment of the presumption of advancement in the matrimonial context to the context of property transactions involving the parent-child relationship.

Rebuttal of presumption of advancement

The applicants failed to rebut the presumption of advancement that arose in favour of the adult daughter in respect of the properties purchased in 2003 and 2006. Little weight could be given to the evidence relied on by the applicants and the intention as inferred from the circumstances showed that the adult daughter was intended to be the sole beneficial owner of those properties.

The Properties were funded by three main sources: the Joint Account, a mortgage advance and (for the property purchased in 2006), a third party. The judge held that the payments made from the Joint Account were attributed to the Bankrupt and his wife on a 50-50 basis. Accordingly, the Bankrupt’s contributions from that account towards the purchase of the Properties were 10%, 5% and 13% respectively.

A presumption of advancement in favour of the adult daughter arose in relation to the properties acquired in 2003 and 2006 because she was still financially dependent on her parents at the time of acquisition. The purchases of the two properties in question were completed at timings and locations convenient to her and were consistent with the pattern of parental support she had received throughout her life. There was no plausible suggestion as to why the Bankrupt would have advanced the funds other than for the purpose of granting a gift to his daughter, given that it was inherently unlikely that he, a sophisticated wealthy businessman, would have wanted her, a graduate on starter salary, to be his trustee at that time. In fact, the judge observed that a trust “made no sense”, whereas beneficial ownership by the adult daughter did.

For the property acquired in 2007, the evidence clearly showed that the Bankrupt and his wife had not intended to retain any beneficial interest in the property. However, the Judge noted that a presumption of advancement would nevertheless apply if this conclusion was incorrect.

Whether liability under a mortgage is capable of giving rise to resulting trust

The judge held that the Bankrupt’s involvement in the mortgage loan should not be treated as a contribution to the purchase price of the property.

In principle, undertaking liability under a mortgage used to fund part of the purchase price of a property may be treated as a contribution giving rise to a resulting trust. However, the fact that one remains potentially liable to the mortgagee is insufficient to give rise to a beneficial interest in their favour (Carlton v Goodman [2002] EWCA Civ 545). Further, the mere guarantee of a mortgage is insufficient to give rise to a contribution to the purchase price that gives rise to a resulting trust.

On the facts, the evidence showed that the Bankrupt was only a party to the mortgage loan on one property and had merely assisted his adult daughter’s purchase of the property. Further, the mutual understanding between the Bankrupt and his adult daughter was that she was responsible for payment of mortgage instalments and that the Bankrupt was only acting as guarantor of the mortgage. The evidence showed that the daughter fulfilled her payment obligations by receiving rental income of the Properties into her own bank account, paying tax and financing the property outgoings. Even if a resulting trust was found, the presumption of advancement applies.

Insolvency Act claims

The judge rejected the alternative claim of the joint trustees in bankruptcy for breaches of section 423 and section 339 IA on the ground that there was no evidence that the Bankrupt contributed to the properties for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of creditors or otherwise prejudicing them, and that no undervalue was established.

It was further noted that it was inherently implausible that an individual with an annual income of the Bankrupt, amounting to £1.6 million, would conceal sums which were not even a small fraction of that income.

Written evidence

The applicants were criticised for having pursued a ‘confused and poorly evidenced primary case for little purpose’. The long-standing practice is that office holders bringing an application by application notice and witness statements must take proper steps to ensure that all non-privileged documents in their possession that were relevant to the issues raised by the application were exhibited to their supporting statements. If this practice is not honoured, there may be a need to give directions for pleadings and formal disclosure.


Cases in relation to the presumption of advancement are often difficult and involve lengthy litigation as the unique factual circumstances of each case must be considered. Woods v Watkins affirms the approach of the court paying close attention to the context of the case, such as whether an alleged intention or action makes sense in light of the parties’ respective positions and circumstances. This includes the parent’s financial circumstances and relationship with their children.

Further, whilst the presumption of advancement may be rebutted by contrary evidence, the judgment affirms that the presumption is not obsolete in modern times and is not restricted to minor children. A financially independent child is entitled to rely on the presumption, though it is more readily rebuttable and the threshold of proof required is inevitably higher. Ultimately, the intention of the parties as identified from the circumstances of the case is the paramount consideration.

Finally, documentary evidence, objectively provable facts and other forms of primary evidence are preferred over memories. It is important for firms and clients to rely on objective evidence as much as possible.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions