Legal Case Brief
Jones v Kernott [2010] EWCA Civ 578
Beneficial interests of a co-habiting couple in a family home.
Facts
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.
Issues
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.
Decision/Outcome
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.
Updated 21 March 2026
This article discusses the Court of Appeal decision in Jones v Kernott [2010] EWCA Civ 578 but describes the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal: Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53. Readers should note that the authoritative and final decision is that of the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeal, and the citation given in the heading is therefore misleading. The article is otherwise broadly accurate in its summary of the Supreme Court’s reasoning. The Supreme Court confirmed the starting presumption of equal beneficial ownership where property is held in joint names, while affirming that this presumption can be displaced by evidence that the parties’ common intention subsequently changed. Where the court cannot ascertain what the parties actually intended, it may impute an intention based on what is fair having regard to the whole course of dealing between them. The 90/10 split in favour of Ms Jones remains the confirmed outcome. This decision continues to represent good law and remains the leading authority on beneficial interests in jointly owned property for unmarried cohabitants. It should be read alongside the earlier House of Lords decision in Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, which established the foundational principles the Supreme Court applied and developed in Jones v Kernott. No subsequent statutory reform has altered the legal position described, as proposed reforms to cohabitant property rights have not been enacted as of the date of this note.
