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
- August 27th, 2014Pre-nuptial agreements are not binding
Although the government is yet to legislate to give pre-nuptial agreements automatic legal recognition in England and Wales, the courts have for several years adopted the position that those who … Read more
- August 21st, 2014Considering selling or merging your PR or Digital Agency?
We act for a significant number of PR and Digital Agencies and from our experience of mergers and acquisitions over the years, I set out the top 6 questions you … Read more
- August 20th, 2014Financial claims are extinguished by decree absolute – Common Misconception
Here is the third in our series of common misconceptions around family law. This week we are tackling the issue of financial claims being extinguished by decree absolute. In a … Read more
- August 20th, 2014Dealing with grief when a loved one dies
“I’ve nothing against death, I just don’t want to be there when it happens….” Woody Allen. Grief is the natural process of reaction and adjustment to loss and change. … Read more
- August 19th, 2014Companies reveal gender pay gap
It’s time for MLP’s quick round up of the key talking points in employment law for the week ending 15 August 2014. Employment law news Just four companies reveal gender … Read more
- August 13th, 2014Steps to avoid bribery when client entertaining
6 Practical steps to help avoid liability under the Bribery Act 2010
1. Top level commitmentAll senior managers and directors must understand that they could be personally liable under … Read more
- August 12th, 2014Employment law update – TUPE and unfair dismissal
It’s time for MLP’s quick round up of the key talking points in employment law from last week and the hot topics included TUPE, unfair dismissal and harassment! Employment law … Read more
- August 12th, 20145 common misconceptions for not making a Will
When it comes to discussions around making a Will, there are many reasons that people give for not having done so already. Here, we correct some of the myths around … Read more
- August 11th, 2014Client entertaining or bribery?
The line between entertaining and bribery is not always obvious and can be very punitive. It is vital for businesses to understand the offences under the Bribery Act 2010 and … Read more
- August 11th, 20145 Common Misconceptions about family law – 2
Fathers have the same rights as mothers When a child is born, the mother automatically acquires “Parental Responsibility” for that child but the father may not. Parental responsibility covers all … Read more
- August 6th, 20145 Common Misconceptions about family law – 1
Over the next few weeks I’d like to share the five Common Misconceptions about family law. The first in our series is on the topic of… The Common Law Wife… Read more
- August 6th, 2014Dragon investment
I read in the paper that a couple of entrepreneurs have landed £50,000 in Dragon’s Den funding for their gourmet tea business. This funding from Kelly Hoppen was for a … Read more
- August 5th, 2014Employment law update – parental leave, tribunals and more
It’s time for MLP’s quick round up of the key talking points in employment law for the week ending 1 August 2014. Employment law news 70% of potentially successful Employment … Read more
- August 3rd, 2014UK estates will pay £530 million in ‘unnecessary’ Inheritance Tax in 2014
- August 3rd, 2014Lucien Freud’s son fails in challenge to £42 million secret trust
The distribution of Lucian Freud’s estate will remain a secret after one of his 14 children lost a High Court bid to challenge the validity of his Will this week.… Read more
- August 3rd, 2014Will claims triple as families choose DIY executors over solicitors
- July 31st, 2014Commission decision hits holiday pay sums for employers
As the big summer break gets underway, commission-based employees can expect fatter pay packets on their return following a European Court ruling that commission payments should be considered when calculating … Read more
- July 31st, 2014Lifetime gifts revoked due to undue influence
Ruling that gifts should be set aside The Court of Appeal has this month ruled that gifts worth £700,000 made by a mother to her daughter shortly before she died … Read more
- July 29th, 2014Shared Parental Leave Regulations and more in our Employment Law update
It’s time for MLP’s quick round up of the key talking points in employment law for the week ending 25 July 2014.
NewsDraft shared parental leave regulations laid before … Read more
- July 21st, 2014Does obesity qualify as a disability? Employment Law news round up…
It’s time for MLP’s quick round up of the key talking points in employment law for the week ending 18 July 2014. Employment law news:
Does obesity qualify as … Read more
- July 15th, 2014Employment law update July 2014
It’s time for MLP’s quick round up of the key talking points in employment law at the moment. It’s a bumper edition as we cover employment law news from … Read more