Jones v Kernott [2011]

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.
Back to blog
UOLLB SQE Turbocharge

UOLLB SQE Turbocharge

Get ready for the SQE1 with high-performance SQE Study Guides developed by UOLLB and published by UOL Press to revolutionise your study method and exam strategy.

Turbocharge SQE Performance Here

UOL Case Bank

Upon joining, you become a valuable UOL student and gain instant access to over 2,100 essential case summaries. UOL Case Bank is constantly expanding. Speed up your revision with us now.

Subscribe Now

Where are our students from?

Council of Europe
Crown Prosecution Service
Baker Mckenzie 
Yale University
University of Chicago
Columbia University
New York University
University of Michigan 
INSEAD
University of London
University College London (UCL)
London School of Economics (LSE)
King’s College London (KCL)
Royal Holloway, University of London 
Birkbeck, University of London
SOAS, University of London
University of Manchester
University of Zurich
University of York
Brandeis University
University of Exeter
University of Sheffield
Boston University
University of Washington
University of Leeds
University of Law
University of Kent
University of Hull
Queen’s University Belfast
Toronto Metropolitan University
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
University of Buckingham
ESSEC Business School

  • Criminal Practice

    Diagrams and Charts

    Our carefully designed diagrams and charts will guide you through complex legal issues.

  • Criminal Law

    Clear and Succinct Definitions

    Key concepts are concisely defined to help you understand legal topics quickly.

  • Property Law

    Statutory Provisions

    Statutory provisions are provided side by side with legal concepts to help you swiftly locate the relevant legislation.

  • Public Law

    Case Summaries

    We have summarised important cases for you so that you don't need to read long and boring cases.

  • Evidence

    Rules and Exceptions

    Rules and exceptions are clearly listed so that you know when a rule applies and when it doesn't.

  • Company Law

    Terminology

    Legal terms and key concepts are explained at the beginning of each chapter to help you learn efficiently.

  • Case Law

    Case law is provided side by side with legal concepts so that you know how legal principles and precedents were established.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Law Essay Guide

    You will learn essential law exam skills and essay writing techniques that are not taught in class.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Problem Question Guide

    We will show you how to answer problem questions step by step to achieve first-class results.

  • Conflict of Laws

    Structured Explanations

    Complex legal concepts are broken down into concise and digestible bullet point explanations.

  • Legal System and Method

    Legal Research

    You will learn legal research techniques with our study guide and become a proficient legal researcher.

  • Jurisprudence and Legal Theory

    Exam-focused

    All essential concepts, principles, and case law are included so that you can answer exam questions quickly.