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
- Whether the presumption that beneficial ownership follows legal ownership in jointly owned property can be rebutted by evidence of changed or diverse intentions.
- How courts should determine and quantify beneficial interests when common intention either changes over time or is unclear.
- 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.