Proceed with care. Siobhan Jones distils the lessons practitioners can take away from Kernott v Jones
In its much awaited ruling on Kernott v Jones [2011] UKSC 53, [2011] All ER (D) 64 (Nov), the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Court of Appeal decision, clarified the decision in Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, [2007] 2 All ER 929, and revisited the concepts of inferred intention and imputed intention.
The facts
In 1985 Mr Kernott and Ms Jones purchased a house in joint names. No declaration was made as to the beneficial interest. In 1993 Kernott left the property and purchased a property in his sole name. The parties cashed in a joint life insurance policy to assist Kernott in his purchase. He made no further contribution to the costs of the property, which were met in full by Jones who lived there with the couple’s two children.
In 2006 Kernott claimed a beneficial share in the property. Jones disputed his entitlement and sought a declaration under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 that she was entitled
