Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Jones v Kernott

350 words (1 pages) Case Summary

30th Sep 2021 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Legal Case Brief

Jones v Kernott [2010] EWCA Civ 578

Beneficial interests of a co-habiting couple in a family home.


An unmarried, co-habiting couple, Mr. Kernott and Ms. Jones, purchased a home with a mortgage in joint names. The couple co-habited the home and contributed to its expenses for eight years, after which Mr. Kernott left the property and made no further contributions. Ms. Jones remained in the property with their children and paid all further expenses towards the acquisition of the property.


The question arose as to the beneficial interests that each party had in the property, in light of its registration under joint names as well as their ensuing conduct in relation to it.


The Supreme Court upheld that, if a property is purchased in joint names for a couple, there is a presumption that their beneficial interests in the property coincide with their legal estate. The Court placed emphasis that the presiding presumption is reflective of a couple’s joint venture to purchase a property, underpinned by an emotional and economic relationship of trust that does not hold each party separately account financially. However, albeit with a high threshold, this presumption can be rebutted by evidence concerning subsequent conduct in relation to the property, such as unequal contributions to the acquisition of the property under a mortgage. In this case, the Court deduced that “objectively from [the parties’] conduct” following from the initial joint registration, there can be no presumption of joint beneficial ownership in a family home. (paras 52-53). Accordingly, the Court held that each of Mr. Kernott and Ms. Jones hold differing beneficial shares in the property that are reflective of their respective contributions to the house. Overturning the Court of Appeal’s previous decision, this was determined to be 10% for Mr. Kernott and 90% for Ms. Jones.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles