Judges hearing cohabitation claims over a former couple’s home should only depart from the principle of equal interests where there is a clear indication of joint shared intentions to the contrary/
In the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Wall said there was “a total lack of evidence about the parties’ intentions”, in this case and overturned the findings by the county court and High Court that the interests should shift to 90-10 in favour of Patricia Jones.
Ms Jones and Leonard Kernott had lived together unmarried for eight years in the house they had jointly bought in 1985 in Essex, before separating in 1993. Since then Mr Kernott has lived in his own property, leaving Ms Jones to pay for the remaining mortgage on the house and fund the upbringing and education of their two children.
“The critical question is whether or not I can properly infer from the parties’ conduct since separation a joint intention that, over time, the 50-50 split would be varied,” said the judge.and I simply cannot infer such an intention from the parties’ conduct.
“The conveyance into joint names created a joint beneficial interest, and had equal interests, when they separated .There has to be something to displace those interests, and I have come to the conclusion that the passage of time is insufficient to do so, even if in the meantime [Mr Kernott] has acquired alternative accommodation, and [Ms Jones] has paid all the outgoings.”
“In my judgment, [Mr Kernott] has a 50 per cent interest in the property,
Leading London lawyer, Rodney Hylton-Potts said, ‘There really must be a new law. It seems quite unfair that when one party pays all the outgoings, after a separation, he or she is still only get 50%. The courts must be forced to be not concerned with fairness’
If you own a property jointly with an ex-partner contact the expert
For more information or a free legal opinion telephone 020-7381-8111 (24 hour service) or email law@rhplaw.co.uk.
