Jones v Kernott [2011]
Share
Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 is a landmark decision by the UK Supreme Court, concerning the complexities of establishing beneficial entitlement in co-owned family homes under a constructive trust. The case centres around the contributions of partners, the evolution of shared intentions over time, and the fair apportionment of property shares.
Ms Jones and Mr Kernott began cohabiting in 1984, jointly purchasing a property at 39 Badger Hall Avenue, Thundersley in Essex. Ms Jones contributed £6,000, and the balance was covered by a mortgage. Over the years, the couple shared expenses, but in 1993, they separated. Mr Kernott ceased financial contributions and eventually purchased another property. In 2006, he sought to realise his alleged half-share in Badger Hall Avenue, leading to litigation under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996.
Judge Dedman, considering previous case law, held that the original intention for joint ownership had evolved. Taking into account Mr Kernott's cessation of payments and Ms Jones's substantial equity contribution, the court determined a fair split of 90:10 in favour of Ms Jones. The Court of Appeal, however, overturned this decision, ruling that the house should be held in equal shares of 50/50.
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, overturned the Court of Appeal's ruling. The court held that the property should be held in trust with a ratio of 10% to Mr Kernott and 90% to Ms. Jones. The justices provided different grounds for their concurrence.
Lord Kerr expressed skepticism about inferring Mr Kernott's intention to crystallise his interest in 1995. However, he found it eminently fair, in line with Judge Dedman's ruling, to apportion the property based on the parties' contributions. Lord Kerr preferred imputing the intention to the parties rather than inferring it, emphasising the court's discretion to ensure fairness.
Lord Wilson critiqued the notion that equity must impute a common intention to the parties. He argued that, when equity is forced to impute common intention, it essentially seeks a fair result. Lord Wilson disagreed with Lady Hale's assertion on this matter. Despite the difference between inferring and imputing, he concurred with the result based on the evidence and fairness.
Jones v Kernott establishes that constructive trusts require a nuanced approach, considering the evolving intentions of co-owners. The case underscores the court's discretion to ensure fairness when inferring or imputing common intentions, ultimately emphasising equity and contribution in determining property shares. The decision provides valuable insights into the dynamic nature of constructive trusts in family home scenarios.
Ms Jones and Mr Kernott began cohabiting in 1984, jointly purchasing a property at 39 Badger Hall Avenue, Thundersley in Essex. Ms Jones contributed £6,000, and the balance was covered by a mortgage. Over the years, the couple shared expenses, but in 1993, they separated. Mr Kernott ceased financial contributions and eventually purchased another property. In 2006, he sought to realise his alleged half-share in Badger Hall Avenue, leading to litigation under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996.
Judge Dedman, considering previous case law, held that the original intention for joint ownership had evolved. Taking into account Mr Kernott's cessation of payments and Ms Jones's substantial equity contribution, the court determined a fair split of 90:10 in favour of Ms Jones. The Court of Appeal, however, overturned this decision, ruling that the house should be held in equal shares of 50/50.
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, overturned the Court of Appeal's ruling. The court held that the property should be held in trust with a ratio of 10% to Mr Kernott and 90% to Ms. Jones. The justices provided different grounds for their concurrence.
Lord Kerr expressed skepticism about inferring Mr Kernott's intention to crystallise his interest in 1995. However, he found it eminently fair, in line with Judge Dedman's ruling, to apportion the property based on the parties' contributions. Lord Kerr preferred imputing the intention to the parties rather than inferring it, emphasising the court's discretion to ensure fairness.
Lord Wilson critiqued the notion that equity must impute a common intention to the parties. He argued that, when equity is forced to impute common intention, it essentially seeks a fair result. Lord Wilson disagreed with Lady Hale's assertion on this matter. Despite the difference between inferring and imputing, he concurred with the result based on the evidence and fairness.
Jones v Kernott establishes that constructive trusts require a nuanced approach, considering the evolving intentions of co-owners. The case underscores the court's discretion to ensure fairness when inferring or imputing common intentions, ultimately emphasising equity and contribution in determining property shares. The decision provides valuable insights into the dynamic nature of constructive trusts in family home scenarios.