判决理由
Where a property is held in joint names but the parties' common intention as to beneficial ownership has changed over time, the court may infer or impute the parties' intentions as to their shares. Where intention cannot be inferred, the court may impute an intention to hold in shares that are fair having regard to the whole course of dealing.
事实
Ms Jones and Mr Kernott purchased a property as joint tenants. They separated in 1993. Mr Kernott moved out and made no financial contribution to the property for 14 years. In 2006, he claimed a 50% share.
判决摘要
The Supreme Court held that the parties' common intention had changed over time. Given Mr Kernott's lengthy absence and lack of contribution, the fair outcome was a 90/10 split in Ms Jones's favour. The court could impute an intention where none could be inferred.
关键引述
"Where the parties' common intention as to their respective shares cannot be inferred, it may be imputed to them. The court is looking for the parties' actual shared intentions, not what a reasonable person would have intended."
— Lady Hale and Lord Walker
后续处理
The leading authority on quantification of beneficial interests in jointly owned property, building on Stack v Dowden [2007].