header-logo header-logo

24 June 2010 / Geraldine Morris
Issue: 7423 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Not fit for purpose?

Kernott demonstrates once again that cohabitants deserve better justice. Geraldine Morris explains why

The Court of Appeal decision in Kernott v Jones [2010] All ER (D) 244 (May) has highlighted again that the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996) is like an ill fitting suit for cohabitants, trying to squeeze family breakdown, with all its messiness and uncertainty, into a fundamentally arms-length civil framework.

The facts

Briefly, the facts in Kernott v Jones were as follows:
l The parties met in 1980, they did not marry and had two children. In 1985 they bought a house in joint names for £30,000, with £6,000 funded by the claimant and an interest-only mortgage supported by an endowment policy.
l The defendant gave the claimant £100 per week and from that and her own earnings the claimant paid for housekeeping, mortgage, outgoings and an insurance policy. The defendant built an extension to the property, which increased its value by 50% of the purchase price. In 1993, the parties separated.
l Following separation the claimant paid

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll