Jones v Kernott

Supreme Court provides guidance where beneficial interests are not expressed

 

In allowing the remaining occupier's appeal the Supreme Court has explained how courts should "infer" or "impute" intentions to the parties and the principles to be applied, namely :

 

(i) as recognised in Stack v Dowden, the starting point where a family home is bought in joint names is that they own the property as joint tenants in law and equity;

 

(ii) that presumption can be displaced by evidence that their common intention was, in fact, different, either when the property was purchased or later;

 

(iii) common intention is to be objectively deduced (inferred) from the conduct and dealings between the parties;

(iv) where it is clear that they had a different intention at the outset or had changed their original intention, but it is not possible to infer an actual intention as to their respective shares, then the court is entitled to impute an intention that each is entitled to the share which the court considers fair having regard to the whole course of dealing between them in relation to the property; and

 

(v) each case will turn on its own facts; financial contributions are relevant but there are many other factors which may enable the court to decide what shares were either intended or fair.

 

Jones (Appellant) v Kernott (Respondent) [2011] UKSC 53, on appeal from the Court of Appeal [2010] EWCA Civ 578

 

Date Added: 10th November 2011