Jones v Kernott

Jones v Kernott

Where a family home is bought in joint names by a cohabiting couple without an express declaration of beneficial interests, the presumption is of joint beneficial ownership. This presumption can be displaced by evidence of a different common intention at acquisition or a subsequent change in intention, objectively deduced from the parties' conduct. If it is not possible to ascertain the parties' actual intention as to shares, the court may impute an intention that is fair, having regard to the whole course of dealing between them in relation to the property. In this case, the parties' intentions changed after separation, justifying a division of 90% to Ms Jones and 10% to Mr Kernott.

Parties
Appellant: Jones; Respondent: Kernott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Constructive Trusts, Beneficial Ownership, Cohabitation, Resulting Trusts, Imputation and Inference of Intention
Equity Property Law Trusts Constructive Trusts Beneficial Ownership Cohabitation Resulting Trusts Imputation and Inference of Intention

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jones

Appellant

Kernott

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How are beneficial interests in a family home acquired in joint names by an unmarried couple to be determined when there is no express declaration of trust?
  2. 2 Can the parties' common intention as to beneficial shares change over time and, if so, how is this intention to be ascertained or imputed?

Ratio Decidendi

Where a family home is bought in joint names by a cohabiting couple without an express declaration of beneficial interests, the presumption is of joint beneficial ownership. This presumption can be displaced by evidence of a different common intention at acquisition or a subsequent change in intention, objectively deduced from the parties' conduct. If it is not possible to ascertain the parties' actual intention as to shares, the court may impute an intention that is fair, having regard to the whole course of dealing between them in relation to the property. In this case, the parties' intentions changed after separation, justifying a division of 90% to Ms Jones and 10% to Mr Kernott.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the trial judge restored: beneficial interests in 39 Badger Hall Avenue to be divided 90% to Ms Jones and 10% to Mr Kernott.