Ratio Decidendi
Where a property is held in joint names by parties in a domestic relationship, there is a presumption of equal beneficial ownership but it can be displaced by evidence of a different common intention. When assessing beneficial shares, the court must first attempt to infer the parties' actual common intention from the whole course of their dealing in relation to the property. Where the evidence permits neither inference nor establishment of a common intention, the court may impute to the parties an intention to hold in whatever shares are fair, having regard to the whole course of dealing. Crucially, the common intention may change over time — what began as an equal sharing may evolve into an unequal one as circumstances develop.
Hechos
Ms Jones and Mr Kernott purchased a property as joint tenants. They separated in 1993. Mr Kernott moved out and made no financial contribution to the property for 14 years. In 2006, he claimed a 50% share.
Resumen de la sentencia
The Supreme Court (Lady Hale, Lord Walker, Lord Collins, Lord Kerr, with Lord Wilson) unanimously dismissed Mr Kernott's appeal, awarding Ms Jones a 90% beneficial interest. Building on Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, the Court held that when property is bought jointly in a domestic relationship, it is presumed to be owned equally in equity. However, that presumption can be displaced by evidence that the parties' common intention was different — or that it changed. The Court held that common intention is to be assessed objectively from the parties' conduct and dealings. If actual intention cannot be found, the court may impute a fair allocation. Here, the parties had begun with equal shares but the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to divergent paths after separation: Ms Jones bore all outgoings and mortgage payments for 14 years while Mr Kernott cashed in a life policy and bought his own home. The Court held it was proper to infer a changed intention, or alternatively to impute one, resulting in a 90/10 split. Lady Hale and Lord Walker gave the leading joint judgment; Lord Collins, Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson agreed on the outcome.
Citas clave
"Where the parties' common intention as to their respective shares cannot be inferred from their conduct, it may be imputed to them. The court is searching for the result which reflects their actual (even if unstated) intentions or, where those cannot be identified, what is fair having regard to the whole course of dealing between them in relation to the property."
— Lady Hale and Lord Walker at [31]
"The difference between inferring and imputing is significant. An inferred intention is one which is objectively deduced to be the most likely explanation of the parties' conduct. An imputed intention is one which is attributed to the parties, even though it is not their actual intention."
— Lady Hale and Lord Walker at [34]
"In law, 'context is everything' and the primary emphasis on the parties' intentions means that the courts should not readily substitute their own judgment for that of the parties."
— Lord Wilson at [87]
Tratamiento posterior
Jones v Kernott is routinely applied as the governing authority on quantification of beneficial shares in jointly-owned homes. Applied in Barnes v Phillips [2015] EWCA Civ 1056, where the Court of Appeal held the Kernott imputation power is used where inference fails.
Applied in Graham-York v York [2015] EWCA Civ 72, where the Court of Appeal held that imputing a share requires attention to fairness across the whole course of dealing, not merely financial contributions.
Distinguished where the property is held in one party's sole name — the Stack/Kernott framework does not automatically apply; the sole-name context requires additional evidence of common intention per Lloyds Bank v Rosset [1991] AC 107.
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Know Your Rights
Get Professional Help