Sunday, September 8, 2019

Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 has been Described as a Truly Essay

Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 has been Described as a Truly Ground-breaking Case in Relation to Cohabitant Purchaser - Essay Example The landmark ruling by Supreme Court laid down paradigms applicable to home ownership by unmarried cohabitant couples. Discussion Facts and Decisions of the Case Leonard Kernott and Patricia Jones started cohabiting in 1983 and had two children. They purchased a family home in joint names at 39 Badger Hall Avenue for ? 30,000 in 1984. The couple lived in this home for around eleven years (Pawlowski 2012). Upon separation of the two in October 1993, Kernott deserted their family home, while the claimant stayed with children in the house. Jones did not apply for Child Support Agency. Kernott quit making mortgage contribution for the property and demonstrated little commitment towards maintaining their two children. Their joint effort in selling the property for ? 70,000 in October 1995 was unsuccessful. The parties, however, cashed in on mutually owned insurance policy, of which the proceeds were shared equally. Kernott used his share to mortgage a house at 114 Stanley Road in Essex fo r around ? 57,000. Jones used her share to perform cosmetic surgery. Kernott invoked correspondence in order to claim his share of property at 39 Badger Hall Avenue. In 2007, Jones filed lawsuit against Kernott’s claim for joint share of the property (Mee 2012). Jones claimed that Kernott’s purchase of property at 114 Stanley Road was an indication of change in his intention for joint tenancy over the house. Ms. Jones sought quantification of their respective property interests. The claimant sought greater share of the property. The court ruling by Judge Dedman was that Jones merited 90 % of property ownership. Nicholas Strauss QC, a deputy judge of the High Court, approved the decision on appeal by the defendant (Pawlowski 2012). Further appeal by Kernott led to overturning of the Strauss’s decision on majority voting by the Court of Appeal. The decision was that the parties were entitled to equal share of property at 39 Badger Hall Avenue. This was based on fi nding that the intention of the parties was unchanged. Jones had filed an appeal to Supreme Court, which led to restoration of Strauss’s decision (Yip 2012; Mee 2012). The lordship of the Supreme Court gave mixed opinion as to whether property evaluations were to be approached from inference perspective or imputation of intentions of the parties. The ruling by Supreme Court Judges, Lord Walker and Lady Hale, was based on the premise that the parties had formed mutual purpose for beneficial ownership of the property. The decision was based on the premise that Kernott’s purchase of new home for himself was a demonstration of his change of plan. The logical inference was that Kernott’s lack of commitment for paying mortgage for the property at Badger Hall Avenue was manifested at his purchase of another home. Just like Jone’s would have exclusive benefit of capital gain in her home at Badger Hall Avenue, so would Kernott’s have exclusive benefit of ca pital gain at Stanley Road (Mee 2012). Nevertheless, Lords Kerr and Wilson felt that the parties’ intentions should be imputed to ownership of 90:10. Lord Collins stance was unclear concerning imputation and inference of intention (Yip 2012). Lord Wilson argued that it was logical inference that the parties shared intention with regard to secondary issue of quantification. Wilson preferred to approach the matter from

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.