Family Law Hub

Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53

Judgment, published: 09/11/2011


Items referring to this

  • Judgment, 13/09/2012, free
  • Judgment concerning beneficial interest in properties where H's father asserted that H had no interest in them. See also AM v SS [2014] EWHC 865 (Fam) Judgment, 09/12/2014, free
  • Judgment dealing with beneficial interest in the former matrimonial home where the wife was the registered owner but which the husband, who had made himself bankrupt, claimed was only on a bare trust in his favour. The judge found the wife to have a 25% beneficial interest. Judgment, 27/01/2015, free
  • Judgment, 24/05/2012, free
  • Case note, 14/06/2012, members only
  • Appeal against an order which held that the parties held beneficial shares in their jointly owned property as tenants in common in the ratio 85:15. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 10/12/2015, free
  • The wife sought declarations in relation to 2 properties which she argued were wholly or mainly beneficially owned by the husband, notwithstanding that (i) the legal title to Property 1 was held in the four names of the husband and his family, and there was a signed TR1 declaring that they hold it as tenants in common in equal shares, and (ii) the legal title to Property 2 was in the sole name of the husband's brother. The wife's applications were dismissed. Judgment, 18/03/2014, free
  • In a tweet: Distillation of Jones v Kernott Case note, 28/04/2014, free
  • Appeal against finding that a former cohabitee had a 25% interest in a property that was owned by the appellant but from where the respondent runs a business. Appeal allowed. Judgment, 14/09/2015, free
  • Lynsey Cade-Davies and Amber Sheridan of 29 Bedford Row review current developments in cohabitation law including an update on recent cases, proprietary estoppel after Southwell v Blackburn, the Cohabitation Rights Bill and points to remember when handling cases in the civil courts. Webcast, 16/03/2015, members only
  • Appeal against orders dismissing claims by a former partner that she should have a share in 3 properties bought in the other partners name. Appeal dismissed because, broadly, the Court of Appeal's powers to challenge findings of fact are limited, there was no express agreement and there was no detriment. Judgment, 29/04/2015, free
  • Appeal against orders dismissing claims by a former partner that she should have a share in 3 properties bought in the other partners name Case note, 17/06/2015, members only
  • On the evidence presented before the court, and judged by the doctrines of common intention constructive trust and proprietary estoppel, the court found that the claimant had not proved her case that there had been an agreement between her and her cohabitee that she would share any profit after the farm, which was legally owned by the defendent, was sold. Judgment, 11/05/2018, free
  • Case note, 13/05/2012, registration required
  • Judgment, 04/07/2012, free
  • Appeal against finding that the appellant had only a 25% beneficial interest in a property in which she had lived unmarried with her partner for over 33 years and that was now subject of possession proceedings. She also appealed against decision that her share be paid out of remaining proceeds of sale. Both appeals dismissed. Judgment, 10/02/2015, free
  • Webcast, 11/01/2012, members only
  • In a tweet: Broadening the scope of Stack v Dowden Case note, 12/06/2017, members only
  • Judgment, 12/11/2012, free
  • Case note, 05/12/2012, free
  • Case note, 30/08/2012, members only
  • Application for declaratory relief pursuant to s 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 where the applicant claimed that she was the sole beneficial owner of 2 of the 4 properties the couple owned and that she had an 82% interest in another of the properties. Judgment, 18/03/2016, free
  • Appeal concerning the correct apportionment of beneficial interest in a family property. Judgment, 02/11/2016, free
  • ToLATA case in which Mr Justice Holman expressed his exasperation at the disproportionate costs that had been incurred relative to the value of the available assets, and the volume of documentation which had been produced in contravention of PD 27A, limiting bundles to 350 pages of A4 unless the court gives permission otherwise. Judgment, 05/12/2014, free
  • Judgment, 02/01/2013, free
  • Judgment, 28/01/2013, free
  • Appeal by the daughter of the deceased, who had died intestate, that she was the sole beneficial owner of a property, and not, as the judge found, a joint owner with the father's second wife. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 24/02/2017, free

Published: 09/11/2011


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item