Jones v Kernott [2009] EWHC 1713 (Ch) (10 July 2009)

Jones v Kernott [2009] EWHC 1713 (Ch) (10 July 2009)

The parties' beneficial interests in the jointly owned property changed after separation due to their conduct, including financial separation and acquisition of separate property. In the absence of evidence as to the precise new shares, the court was entitled to impute an intention that the shares should be adjusted to what is fair, resulting in a 90:10 split in favour of Ms. Jones.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1713 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Patricia Anne Jones; Defendant/appellant: Leonard Trevor Kernott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Trusts, Beneficial Ownership, Cohabitation, Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, Imputed Intention, Division of Property
Property Law Equity Constructive Trusts Beneficial Ownership Cohabitation Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 Imputed Intention Division of Property

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Anne Jones

Claimant/respondent

Leonard Trevor Kernott

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether and to what extent beneficial interests in jointly owned property changed after parties' separation and subsequent conduct
  2. 2 Whether the court may impute a change of intention as to beneficial interests based on fairness and the parties' conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The parties' beneficial interests in the jointly owned property changed after separation due to their conduct, including financial separation and acquisition of separate property. In the absence of evidence as to the precise new shares, the court was entitled to impute an intention that the shares should be adjusted to what is fair, resulting in a 90:10 split in favour of Ms. Jones.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay costs of the appeal on the standard basis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
  • Any application for permission for a second appeal to be made to the Court of Appeal.