Kernott v Jones: A Landmark Case?

A possible landmark case is being held at the Supreme Court. The case of Kernott v Jones could impact the way separation cases are handled where property is concerned with the break-up of cohabiting relationships where a couple is not married.

Mr Kernott and Ms Jones were an unmarried couple who bought a home together in 1985. The home was bought jointly in both of their names with Ms Jones paying the deposit on the mortgage. The couple separated in 1993 and Mr Kernott moved out. Ms Jones continued living at the couple’s former home with their two children. From this point onwards she paid the mortgage with Mr Kernott no longer contributing towards this.

Normally where a couple is living together but are not married, they are deemed to each own 50% of a home if it has been bought in both of their names. Because it is jointly bought they are considered equal owners. This is the same as it would be for friends or business partners who have bought a property jointly. This means that, in theory, Ms Jones and Mr Kernott should be entitled to half of the home each.

In 2006 Mr Kernott tried to claim his half of the property. His former partner challenged this though, as she felt that since she had been paying the mortgage in the twenty-one years since he left, she should be entitled to the majority of the home. The case went to the High Court and Ms Jones was awarded 90% of the home. Mr Kernott is turn challenged this in the Court of Appeal and won. It is now being heard again by the Supreme Court.

In a similar situation for a couple who had been married the circumstances of each half of the couple would be taken into consideration when deciding on the share of the home that each should have.

There are several ways of looking at the ownership of the home in the case of Ms Jones and Mr Kernott.

One is that they should be entitled to 50% each as they own it jointly. It is, after all, owned in both of their names. Does it matter who has been paying the mortgage or who’s been living there? They knew the circumstances when they bought it and the law shouldn’t be changed.

Another view is that as Ms Jones has been paying for the home the majority of it should be owned by her. She has been paying the mortgage all these years and therefore should own an equivalent proportion.

A third way of looking at it is that Ms Jones may have been paying for the home, but she has also benefitted; she has been living there all this time.

This case could prove to be a landmark one. If it is not deemed that each party owns half of the home each then this could prove to be a precedent for future cases. It could change the way family law is dealt with regarding the break-up of unmarried cohabiting couples. This is something that many family law solicitors and other experts have been calling for for a long time.

Andrew Marshall (c)

Family Law in Partnership are a Family Law Solicitors who look for an ethical approach to assist their clients.