## Facts

- Jones v Kernott [2012] 1 AC 776 concerned the allocation of beneficial interests in property jointly owned by a cohabiting, unmarried couple.
- The couple initially purchased the property in joint names, sharing expenses.
- After the couple separated, Ms. Jones remained in the property with their children and paid all subsequent expenses; Mr. Kernott ceased contributions.
- Although their initial intention was joint ownership, the parties’ subsequent conduct indicated a change in their common intention.
- The trial judge determined, and the Supreme Court upheld, that Ms. Jones and Mr. Kernott then held unequal shares—90% and 10% respectively—in the property's beneficial ownership.
- The case illustrates how courts assess the course of conduct and inferred intentions to divide beneficial interests, even without formal agreements and in the absence of marriage.

## Issues

1. Whether the presumption that beneficial ownership follows legal ownership in jointly owned property can be rebutted by evidence of changed or diverse intentions.
2. How courts should determine and quantify beneficial interests when common intention either changes over time or is unclear.
3. Whether courts can impute an intention as to the division of beneficial interests when actual or inferred intention cannot be determined from evidence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that the presumption of joint beneficial ownership may be rebutted by evidence of a contrary or changed common intention.
- It affirmed that the actual course of conduct, including financial and non-financial contributions and the parties’ circumstances, can demonstrate such a change.
- Where no real intention can be deduced, the court is entitled to impute an intention as a matter of fairness, reflecting the whole course of dealings between the parties.
- The trial judge’s ruling allocating a 90:10 beneficial split in favour of Ms. Jones was upheld, on the basis that the parties’ intentions and conduct justified such a division.

## Legal Principles

- Legal ownership and beneficial ownership of property are presumed to coincide but this presumption is rebuttable where there is evidence of a contrary, shared intention.
- The presumption of joint beneficial ownership is not rigid and can be displaced by evidence of a different, mutual intention at the time of acquisition or arising later.
- Courts must assess the parties’ entire course of conduct, including non-financial contributions and their relationship, not solely financial input.
- If no actual or inferred intention can be determined, the court may impute (ascribe) an intention deemed fair from all circumstances to resolve the division of beneficial interest.
- Jones v Kernott confirmed and developed the approach in Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432, encouraging a comprehensive evaluation rather than focusing solely on financial factors.

## Conclusion

Jones v Kernott [2012] 1 AC 776 clarified the law on beneficial ownership in cohabitation disputes, establishing that courts may look beyond legal title and focus on the parties’ intentions and overall conduct, imputing a fair division of interests where direct evidence is lacking.