header-logo header-logo

02 December 2011 / Siobhan Jones
Issue: 7492 / Categories: Features , Family , Property
printer mail-detail

A question of fairness?

Proceed with care. Siobhan Jones distils the lessons practitioners can take away from Kernott v Jones

In its much awaited ruling on Kernott v Jones [2011] UKSC 53, [2011] All ER (D) 64 (Nov), the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Court of Appeal decision, clarified the decision in Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, [2007] 2 All ER 929, and revisited the concepts of inferred intention and imputed intention.

The facts

In 1985 Mr Kernott and Ms Jones purchased a house in joint names. No declaration was made as to the beneficial interest. In 1993 Kernott left the property and purchased a property in his sole name. The parties cashed in a joint life insurance policy to assist Kernott in his purchase. He made no further contribution to the costs of the property, which were met in full by Jones who lived there with the couple’s two children.

In 2006 Kernott claimed a beneficial share in the property. Jones disputed his entitlement and sought a declaration under the Trusts of Land

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’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
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
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
back-to-top-scroll