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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll