Jones v Kernott – Court rules on property rights for unmarried couples

The Supreme Court of England Wales today, 9 November 2011, handed down its judgment giving 90% of a house to a woman who paid a mortgage for thirteen years.  This has implications for millions of unmarried couples. 

This long awaited decision makes it clear that even though a property was registered in both the names of the man and the woman, the Courts are permitted to substitute a fairer division of the ownership.  The Supreme Court was asked whether the assets should be shared equally or predominantly to the woman who alone had paid the mortgage for the past thirteen years.

Last year, the Court of Appeal overturned the lower Courts’ rulings decided that Kernott was entitled to half the value of the house because the couple owned equal shares when they separated and neither had done anything to change the situation since.

However, the Supreme Court restored the County Court order for sharing the assets, the five Justices of the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal.  Lord Walker and Lady Hale said it was a “…logical inference that [the couple] intended Mr Kernott’s interest in Badger Hall Avenue should crystalize in 1995, when they took the house off the market, cashed in an insurance policy, so that Kernott was able to buy a house in his own name. 

The presumption of joint beneficial ownership could be rebutted by evidence that it was not, or ceased to be, the common intention of the parties to hold the property jointly.