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 firstname.lastname@example.org
Latest MLP Solicitors News
- December 5th, 2013Small Business Saturday
- December 4th, 2013How much inheritance tax will I pay?
The number of estates affected by Inheritance Tax is set to double from the current level of 21,000 per year to 42,000 in 2016/17. According to accountancy experts, this increase … Read more
- November 29th, 2013Always Read the Fine Print
US citizen Jen Palmer recently found herself subject to a $3,500 fine for posting a negative online review. In 2008 Jen Palmer ordered some items from KlearGear.com. After the items … Read more
- November 11th, 2013MLP Injury Lawyers and MLP Solicitors LLP – Providing successful solutions for the Healthcare Sector
Services we offer to Healthcare Professionals include:
- Quicker access to diagnostics, treatment and care for your patients
- Medico-legal Report writing
- Drafting Partnership Agreements
- Planning for Retirement, Wealth Management, Estate and … Read more
- November 11th, 2013What is a chain of representation?
Do you know what a ‘chain of representation’ is? A bunch of lawyers linking arms? A special piece of jewellery? Not quite. It’s a legal term for the situation where … Read more
- November 11th, 2013The dangers of non-disclosure
It has been reported that a father has been committed to prison for contempt of court for failing to provide details of his financial circumstances in an application for financial … Read more
- October 28th, 2013Cadbury’s vs Nestle for the colour purple…
After a tough battle at the Court of Appeal and years of battling back and forth with Nestle, Cadbury has now lost its trade mark for the colour purple which … Read more
- October 28th, 2013Constructive Dismissal Law Update
The latest case in constructive dismissal law says that in order to successfully bring a claim for constructive dismissal, the contractual breach by the employer does not necessarily need to … Read more
- October 23rd, 2013Man attacks wife in court
It has recently been reported in the press that a man has been convicted of attacking his wife in court just as judgement was about to be given in a … Read more
- October 22nd, 2013Don’t Pay Too Much Inheritance Tax
Do you know what happens to your pension on death? If you have a taxable estate and your pension passes to your spouse then the proceeds of your pension will … Read more
- October 17th, 2013Don’t forget your business when planning a will
We have been speaking to a lot of business owners recently and asking them what their plans are for their business, in the event of their deaths. It is surprising … Read more
- October 17th, 2013Help to Buy – Can it help you?
The Help to Buy scheme introduced on 1 April 2013 is expected to help up to 74,000 people purchase a property if they can raise a 5% deposit and arrange … Read more
- October 15th, 2013Top judge claims divorce law “not fit for purpose”
In a speech to family lawyers, Lord Justice Coleridge has called for a “root and branch” overhaul of divorce law and procedure. He commented that
“…current divorce and financial provision … Read more
- October 14th, 2013Who owns the sound in Spotify?
The Ministry of Sound (“MOS”) are bringing a claim against Spotify for refusing to delete playlists put together by its users which replicate Ministry of Sound compilations. MOS are now … Read more
- October 9th, 2013A new approach for financial settlements
One of the most common causes of worry and frustration for divorcing or separating couples is the length of time it can take to negotiate a financial settlement. This can … Read more
- October 9th, 2013Flooding – Don’t Get Caught Stranded
The Environment Agency estimates that one in six homes in England are at risk from flooding with land increasingly at risk from different types of flooding. Law Society chief executive … Read more
- October 2nd, 2013Billion-dollar Trust Dispute Comes to an End
Gina Rinehart, Australia’s richest person, has agreed to give up control of a trust fund containing company shares worth billions of dollars following a long-running feud with her children. The … Read more
- September 19th, 2013Property Expenses – be prepared!
When purchasing a property, there are certain expenses involved you may not have considered. For example, there are certain searches that need to be made in regards to your future … Read more
- September 12th, 2013Income tax on joint property
The First-tier Tax Tribunal recently held that a married couple’s agreement to pay to the wife rental income from a jointly owned property did not prevent the husband from being … Read more
- August 30th, 2013Employee Shareholder Status Update
On 15 August 2013, HMRC updated its Share and Assets Valuation Manual (SVM) to take account of the implementation of employee shareholder employment status which is due to be introduced … Read more
- August 29th, 2013Young globe-trotters set to be winners with inheritance tax changes
Globalisation is leading more young professionals into international work and they look set to be the winners in changes in inheritance tax rules in the UK, designed to reflect the … Read more