header-logo header-logo

A question of fairness?

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

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll