The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jones v Kernott is likely to have far-reaching implications for cohabiting couples and the ownership of property.
Mr Kernott and Ms Jones bought a house in their join names in 1985. They separated in 1993 following which Ms Jones was solely responsible for meeting the mortgage repayments. In 2006 Mr Kernott sought to realise his interest in the property which he claimed was 50%. Ms Jones argued she should be the sole beneficial owner of the property.
No declaration had been made as to who owned what at the time of the purchase. The question arose as to whether the conduct of the parties in the period following their separation was sufficient to change the shares of ownership in the property.
When the matter first came to court, the judge decided that it was and awarded Ms Jones a 90% share. Mr Kernott successfully appealed the decision in 2010 when the Court of Appeal indicated that ownership was equal.
Ms Jones then appealed to the Supreme Court which has now reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and reverted to the decision of the original judge by awarded Ms Jones a 90% beneficial interest in the property, with Mr Jones having just 10%.
The Supreme Court decision has provided us with guidance on how the courts will approach a dispute of this nature. The starting point is still to consider what the legal ownership of the is (whether in joint names or one party’s sole name). However, whilst there is a presumption that the beneficial shares of ownership should follow the legal documentation, that presumption can be rebutted by evidence that it was not, or ceased to be, the common intention of the parties to hold the property in that way.
Where there is no clear evidence of the parties’ intentions with regard to ownership, the court will seek to infer a common intention by looking at the parties’ conduct and dealings with each other. However, the court will now go even further. In cases where the court is satisfied that the parties had a different intention as to ownership than the legal documentation suggests (either at the outset or subsequently) but there is no evidence to clarify what the shares of ownership should be, the court will determine what those shares are on the basis of what is fair having regard to the whole course of dealings between the parties so far as the property is concerned.
The decision has been hailed as a return to common sense and certainly provides more flexibility when there is a disagreement between couples as to who owns what. However, given that the court will now effectively impose intentions on parties who may well not have had them, does this go too far? Certainly, whilst there is now more flexibility there is certainly increased uncertainty in such cases and it is worth bearing in mind that Ms Jones and Mr Kernott have spent 6 years fighting this case through the court. They are not wealthy individuals and the property itself was of modest value.
The case certainly highlights the need for reform of the legislation to provide us with a clear framework in which to work. Couples should also think very carefully when they purchase a property how they wish to own it and ensure that they are given appropriate advice at the time of purchase. I would also strongly recommend entering into a cohabitation agreement to define the parties’ intentions clearly and concisely. The cost of doing so is a fraction of the costs of bringing court proceedings and will also provide peace of mind.
If you would like more legal advice on cohabitation agreements contact our family law solicitor Altrincham on 0845 0738 445 or email email@example.comGoogle+
Latest MLP Solicitors News
- April 24th, 2014Frequently Asked Questions About Inheritance TaxWe tend to get asked the same questions by our clients when putting their personal affairs in order and an area which can cause confusion is inheritance tax. We’ve put … Read more
- April 24th, 2014The demise of David Moyes: the employment law consequences
- April 23rd, 2014All change in the family justice system
Yesterday saw the biggest changes to the family justice system in more than a generation. Single Family Court The most important is the long awaited launch of the Family Court. … Read more
- April 22nd, 2014Employment law talking points
Hopefully everyone had a great break over the Easter holiday weekend. Despite it having been a shorter working week last week, there was still lots going on in the world … Read more
- April 16th, 2014Top Tips for Terms and Conditions
How long has it been since you last reviewed your terms and conditions? Are you using them properly? Could they leave your business wide open to dispute? Here are our … Read more
- April 11th, 2014Employment law news round up
From statutory sick pay no longer being recoverable for employers, to France banning work emails after 6pm, here is a quick round up of the some of the key talking … Read more
- April 8th, 2014Is it necessary to appoint professional executors in your Will?
An executor is a person who handles an estate when a person passes away. This means they contact various financial institutions to notify them of a death, close bank accounts, … Read more
- April 7th, 2014A tenth of estates to pay inheritance tax
- April 6th, 2014EU vetoes maternity leave in surrogate cases
The European Court of Justice has ruled against claims for maternity benefits by mothers whose babies were born through surrogacy in two recently announced cases, with the decisions coming weeks … Read more
- April 4th, 2014Trademark dispute
Lush v Amazon in Trademark dispute An underdog win for medium sized business
It’s not often that a medium sized business takes on a huge global corporation and wins, but … Read more
- April 4th, 2014Financial penalties for losing employers
Employment Law Update for the week ending 4 April March 2014 A quick round up of some of the key talking points in employment law for the week ending 4 … Read more
- March 29th, 2014The proactively proportionately perfect way to litigate
So, last week we talked about the 48 hour demand and told you it wouldn’t work if your case is defended. Let’s say your customer owes you £20,000 and defends … Read more
- March 28th, 2014More Women on Boards…and other employment news
Employment Law Update for the week ending 28 March 2014 Here’s our weekly round up of some of the key talking points in employment law for the week ending 28 … Read more
- March 27th, 2014Conscious uncoupling – is it anything new?
With the recent announcement that Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin have decided to separate, a new term has entered the English language – “conscious uncoupling”. There has been much debate … Read more
- March 23rd, 2014MLP Solicitors supports ASICS Greater Manchester Marathon in Trafford
Firm sponsors long distance event for third year Altrincham law firm, MLP Solicitors is once again one of the partner sponsors of the ASICS Greater Manchester Marathon in Trafford and … Read more
- March 21st, 2014Chancellor’s pension changes and other news
A quick round up of some of the key talking points in employment law for the week ending 21 March 2014 from employment solicitor, Gareth Matthews. News Chancellor announces pensions … Read more
- March 20th, 2014Top 5 things to consider when buying a business
When you decide to buy a business, it can be a stressful but exciting time and therefore it can be easy to overlook some of the key considerations that are … Read more
- March 18th, 2014Employment tribunals number drops…and other news
Here’s a quick round up of some of the latest key talking points in employment law for the week ending 14 March 2014 from employment solicitor, Gareth Matthews. Employment law … Read more
- March 17th, 2014The Power of the 48 hour DEMAND
- March 12th, 2014Is the world going crazy?
Probably, but let’s enjoy the ride to madness! I’m not going to use this blog to spout about the dumbing down of language – I actually think taking the jargon … Read more
- March 12th, 2014Family law – mediate, don’t litigate!
Family law continues to face many changes in the coming weeks and months. 22 April 2014 sees the launch of The Family Court, replacing the jurisdictions of the Family Proceedings … Read more