Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53; [2012] 1 AC 776

The appellant (J) appealed against a decision which declared that the property co-owned by her and the respondent (K) was held as tenants in common in equal shares. The couple lived together, sharing expenses such as bills and food shops for over eight years when K moved out of the property in 1993. J remained in the property with their two children and then paid all household expenses herself with K making no further financial contributions. This situation continued for 14 years and when the house was up for sale, K commenced proceedings in the county court claiming a declaration under TOLATA 1996. The declaration was made that 90% of the sale proceeds are to go to J and 10% to K. K appealed for a higher share which was allowed under the Court of Appeal.

Could the presumption of equal beneficial shares in joint name cases be rebutted with sufficient evidence of a change of intention?

The Supreme Court restored the trial judge’s conclusion that Ms Jones held ninety per cent and Mr Kernott ten per cent of the beneficial interest. Joint legal ownership initially supported equal beneficial shares, but the parties’ common intention could change. Their course of dealing after separation justified departing from equality. Where an intention to hold different shares is established but the precise proportions cannot be inferred, the court may attribute a fair division having regard to the whole course of dealing. The judgments differed in aspects of their reasoning, but agreed on the outcome. The decision does not permit an arbitrary fairness-based redistribution whenever a co-owned relationship ends.

Domestic property in joint names presumptively carries equal beneficial shares. Evidence may establish a different or subsequently changed common intention. Where departure from equality is established but precise shares cannot be inferred, the court may impute a fair division from the whole course of dealing.

Jones v Kernott develops Stack v Dowden in the domestic joint-name setting. Equality is the starting point, but the parties may later form a different shared intention. The limited role of imputation concerns quantification after the relevant basis for unequal shares is established; it is not a free-standing power to redistribute property fairly. The long period of separate financial arrangements mattered. Different reasoning among the justices should not obscure the common conclusion restoring the 90:10 division.