Facts
- Jones v Kernott concerned the allocation of beneficial interests in property jointly owned by an unmarried couple.
- The parties purchased the property in joint names and later separated, with one party continuing to live in and maintain the home.
- After the separation, one party bore the entirety of the upkeep and financial contributions related to the property.
- Legal title to the property remained in joint names, while the beneficial ownership was disputed as circumstances changed over time.
- The dispute centered on whether the beneficial interests should mirror the legal title, or reflect the parties’ evolving intentions and respective contributions after separation.
Issues
- Whether beneficial ownership in co-owned property held in joint names must, as a presumption, match legal title, or whether this can be rebutted by evidence of differing intentions.
- Whether courts can infer or impute a change in the parties’ common intention regarding beneficial ownership over time based on conduct and contributions.
- How beneficial shares in jointly owned property should be quantified when there is evidence of changed intentions or contributions after acquisition.
- Whether the established approach in Lloyds Bank v Rosset, focusing on direct financial contributions, remains authoritative in light of Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott.
- To what extent courts may impute intention regarding beneficial interests in the absence of clear evidence.
Decision
- The Supreme Court confirmed that the presumption of joint beneficial ownership arising from joint legal title can be rebutted by evidence of differing common intention.
- It held that common intention may be inferred from the parties’ words and conduct, including both financial and non-financial contributions.
- The court decided that common intention could change over time, and that beneficial interests may be redistributed if subsequent conduct demonstrates this shift.
- Where the actual intention cannot be identified, the court has the authority to impute an intention deemed fair, after evaluating the whole course of dealings between the parties.
- The decision marked a move away from the rigid requirement for express agreements or direct financial contributions, adopting a more flexible and equitable approach.
Legal Principles
- The starting point for beneficial interest in joint names cases is a presumption of equal ownership, subject to rebuttal by evidence of contrary intention.
- Common intention constructive trusts remain guided by the parties' intention, which may be inferred or, where necessary, imputed by the court.
- Courts may consider a broad range of factors—financial and non-financial, express and implied—in determining common intention and quantifying shares.
- There is a recognized departure from the strict approach of Lloyds Bank v Rosset, with courts now placing emphasis on fairness and the realities of domestic relationships.
- Imputation of intention is permissible where the actual intention is indiscernible, allowing courts to reach an equitable outcome.
Conclusion
Jones v Kernott is a significant Supreme Court decision that broadened the approach to determining beneficial interests in co-owned property, emphasizing the importance of the parties’ intentions and conduct rather than legal title alone, and permitting courts to impute intention where necessary to achieve fairness.