Family law

Last month the Supreme Court gave judgment in the case of Kernott v Jones, the terms of which will affect huge numbers of unmarried couples.  In next month's article, I will consider what the effect of the judgment will be but first let us look at how Ms Jones and Mr Kernott got themselves into such a mess.  What follows also goes to show that the old phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse", although correct, is a million miles from reality when the country's top judges cannot agree what the law is in the first place!

The saga of Mr Kernott and Ms Jones began over 30 years ago in 1980.  At that time, they were an ordinary couple blissfully unaware of the problems that lay ahead and the everlasting fame they would achieve, at least in legal circles, as the parties in the leading case of Kernott v Jones. 

In 1983 Mr K moved in to live with Ms J in her mobile home.  They had their first child the following year and bought a new home in Thundersley, Essex.  Importantly, although Ms Jones provided £6,000 of the £30,000 purchase price and Mr Kernott provided nothing, the property was bought in their joint names, as a result of which they acquired joint and equal ownership. 

In 1993 Mr K moved out but neither party sought to do anything about the joint ownership of the property.  Ms Jones continued to live there and paid the mortgage whilst Mr K bought his own house in neighbouring Benfleet.

By 2006 the property was worth approximately £240,000 and, on the face of it, Mr K was entitled to one half of that amount.  Ms J took a different view, telling her former partner that his absence from the property and his failure to contribute anything to the mortgage had severely dented any claim he might have against it. 

Ms J applied to the Court seeking a declaration that she owned the entire property.  For reasons which I shall consider next month, the Judge decided that she and Mr Kernott did not own the property equally; instead, he found that she owned 90% and Mr K only 10%.  In other words, he reduced the value of Mr K's interest from £120,000 to £24,000.

Incensed, Mr Kernott stormed off to the High Court where a more senior Judge ruled once again in favour of Ms Jones.  Mr K then issued yet another appeal, this time to the Court of Appeal in London where three Lords Justice of Appeal solemnly considered who was right and who was wrong.  Of these three, two said yes and one said no; in other words a majority found in favour of Mr Kernott!

However, such was the importance of the legal basis of the decision of the Court of Appeal, that Ms Jones was allowed to petition the Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn the Court of Appeal.

Finally, on 9^th November 2011 five Law Lords sitting as the Supreme Court decided that the Court of Appeal had got it wrong and the original Judge had been right all along.  Ms Jones kept her house and Mr Kernott was left with his 10% which will be nothing compared with the vast legal costs that this legal saga will have created.

All of this could, however, have been avoided if the parties had entered into a Separation Agreement back in 1993.  For ordinary members of the public, that surely is the moral of this case. Next month we will look at the reasons which underpinned the Supreme Court's decision, although you will not be surprised to hear that, although the five judges reached the same decision, their individual reasons were rather different.

Last month the Supreme Court gave judgment in the case of Kernott v Jones, the terms of which will affect huge numbers of unmarried couples.  In next month's article, I will consider what the effect of the judgment will be but first let us look at how Ms Jones and Mr Kernott got themselves into such a mess.  What follows also goes to show that the old phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse", although correct, is a million miles from reality when the country's top judges cannot agree what the law is in the first place!

The saga of Mr Kernott and Ms Jones began over 30 years ago in 1980.  At that time, they were an ordinary couple blissfully unaware of the problems that lay ahead and the everlasting fame they would achieve, at least in legal circles, as the parties in the leading case of Kernott v Jones. 

In 1983 Mr K moved in to live with Ms J in her mobile home.  They had their first child the following year and bought a new home in Thundersley, Essex.  Importantly, although Ms Jones provided £6,000 of the £30,000 purchase price and Mr Kernott provided nothing, the property was bought in their joint names, as a result of which they acquired joint and equal ownership. 

In 1993 Mr K moved out but neither party sought to do anything about the joint ownership of the property.  Ms Jones continued to live there and paid the mortgage whilst Mr K bought his own house in neighbouring Benfleet.

By 2006 the property was worth approximately £240,000 and, on the face of it, Mr K was entitled to one half of that amount.  Ms J took a different view, telling her former partner that his absence from the property and his failure to contribute anything to the mortgage had severely dented any claim he might have against it. 

Ms J applied to the Court seeking a declaration that she owned the entire property.  For reasons which I shall consider next month, the Judge decided that she and Mr Kernott did not own the property equally; instead, he found that she owned 90% and Mr K only 10%.  In other words, he reduced the value of Mr K's interest from £120,000 to £24,000.

Incensed, Mr Kernott stormed off to the High Court where a more senior Judge ruled once again in favour of Ms Jones.  Mr K then issued yet another appeal, this time to the Court of Appeal in London where three Lords Justice of Appeal solemnly considered who was right and who was wrong.  Of these three, two said yes and one said no; in other words a majority found in favour of Mr Kernott!

However, such was the importance of the legal basis of the decision of the Court of Appeal, that Ms Jones was allowed to petition the Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn the Court of Appeal.

Finally, on 9^th November 2011 five Law Lords sitting as the Supreme Court decided that the Court of Appeal had got it wrong and the original Judge had been right all along.  Ms Jones kept her house and Mr Kernott was left with his 10% which will be nothing compared with the vast legal costs that this legal saga will have created.

All of this could, however, have been avoided if the parties had entered into a Separation Agreement back in 1993.  For ordinary members of the public, that surely is the moral of this case. Next month we will look at the reasons which underpinned the Supreme Court's decision, although you will not be surprised to hear that, although the five judges reached the same decision, their individual reasons were rather different.

This article appears in the Local Link magazine.  For further information please contact Mark Hepworth.