A Cautionary Tale for Co-habiting Couples - Supreme Court case of Kernott v Jones

Co-habitation disputes regarding home ownership and the eagerly awaited Supreme Court decision of the case of Kernott v Jones is due imminently.

The facts of the case: An unmarried couple bought a house together in 1985 in joint names and they lived together in the house, which had been bought for £30,000. The woman paid the deposit and the balance was made up by an interest only mortgage. The man largely funded an extension and the mortgage payments and household bills were shared. The couple lived there together and had two children. In 1993 the relationship broke down. The man moved out and ceased to contribute to the mortgage and running expenses of the property, and made no financial contribution towards couple’s children. He bought another property and moved there. The couple cashed in a joint life insurance policy and split the proceeds in part to assist him to finance his new home.

County Court : In 2008, it became necessary to determine the respective shares of the ownership of the property upon application by the woman, by which time the value of the property had risen to £245,000. The County Court ruled that the woman had no financial interest in the property that the man had bought himself and in respect of the joint property, the share of the woman who had remained in the house should be 90 % and the man 10% on the basis this outcome was ‘fair and just’.

Then the High Court : The man appealed. On appeal, the High Court upheld this decision and stated that the result arrived at by the trial judge was within the range of what was fair.

And then the Court of Appeal : After a further appeal, the Court of Appeal ordered (by a majority) that the split should be 50:50. The Court concluded that the parties had agreed on separation that their interests were equal and there was nothing to displace those interests and so the courts below were wrong to conclude differently.

And Now : The woman appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal. The case has now been heard by the Supreme Court and judgment is imminent and may be expected to set a precedent for how similar cases will be decided in the future.

Get in touch

Adverse Possession: 10 years and trying to keep the faith

What is meant by ‘adverse possession’?

Adverse possession is a legal principle by which a person who is not the legal owner of a piece of land can acquire ownership from the legal owner by using the land without the owner’s permission for a specific period of time.

Landlord's dispensation for major works: getting it right

Many residential landlords will be familiar with the requirement to consult with tenants before major works are carried out. The landlord's right to seek dispensation from the Tribunal where it has failed to consult is perhaps less well understood. In a recent Upper Tribunal appeal, Hughes Paddison successfully challenged the First Tier Tribunal’s interpretation of the law. Joe Ferris provides a summary of the appeal and the key principles for landlords to keep in mind when considering an application for dispensation.

Congratulations Heidi on becoming an Equity Partner

Hughes Paddison is delighted to warmly welcome Heidi Aitken to the Equity Partnership. Here we celebrate her career so far and hear about her plans, as an Equity Partner.

Meet our newest Partner Jennifer Allen

We are delighted to announce that Jennifer Allen has joined our Equity Partnership with effect from April 2023. Jennifer started her legal career with Hughes Paddison in 2006 as a Trainee solicitor. Having successfully completed our 2-year Training...

Why we chose Winstons Wish as our Charity of the Year

This year we are delighted to support ‘ Winston’s Wish ’ as our Charity of the Year. Winston’s Wish is a national charity that provides bereavement support, guidance and information to children and young people (up to 25) and their...