Jones v Kernott
The parties' common intention as to their shares can change over time, and where it cannot be inferred, the court can impute an intention by deciding what is fair.
Facts
Ms Jones and Mr Kernott bought a house in their joint names in 1985 and lived there with their two children. In 1993, Mr Kernott moved out, and from then on Ms Jones paid all the mortgage instalments and other outgoings, and supported the children with little help from Mr Kernott. Mr Kernott used his share of a joint insurance policy to buy a house of his own. About 14 years later, Mr Kernott claimed a half share of the house.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that Ms Jones was entitled to 90 per cent and Mr Kernott to 10 per cent. Lord Walker and Lady Hale said that the starting point, for a home in joint names, is that the parties are joint tenants in law and equity, but this can be displaced by showing that they had a different common intention, either when they bought the property or later. The common intention can be inferred from their conduct. Where it is clear that the parties did not intend joint tenancy, but it is not possible to infer what shares they intended, the court is entitled to impute an intention as to the shares, which means deciding what is fair having regard to the whole course of dealing between them. The parties' intentions had changed after they separated.
Related cases on trusts of the family home
- Abbott v Abbott [2007] UKPC 53
- Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317
- Capehorn v Harris [2015] EWCA Civ 955
- Curran v Collins [2015] EWCA Civ 404
- Eves v Eves [1975] 1 WLR 1338
- Fowler v Barron [2008] EWCA Civ 377
- Geary v Rankine [2012] EWCA Civ 555
- Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
