Update: joint ownership of property — a round-up of the major decisions in the wake of Jones v Kernott
By Ashley Wynne
The twin ‘seismic’ cases in the area of co-habitation disputes of Stack v Dowden  UKHL 17 and Jones v Kernott  UKSC 53 have come and gone and case law in which those decisions have been applied has begun to filter through. The following is a brief summary of the major reported cases that have followed in the wake of Jones v Kernott. It is difficult to extract a common thread from these cases as each has its own distinct factual make-up, but if there is any element of commonality of approach, it would seem to be the continued use of financial contributions as the basis upon which the quantification of beneficial entitlements under a constructive trust are calculated.
In Geary v Rankine  EWCA Civ.555, the parties were in a relationship between 1990 and 2009 and lived together for the whole of that period. Their son was born in 1992. Mrs Geary remained married to her former husband until 2002. In 1996, Mr Rankine purchased a guesthouse in Hastings. The property was purchased for £61,000, all of which was sourced from Mr Rankine’s own savings. Initially, a manager was employed but after only a short time Mr Rankine moved from the parties’ home in London to Hastings in order to run the guesthouse himself. Mrs Geary soon joined him and played an active role in running the business. Following the demise of the parties’ relationship, Mrs Geary claimed: (i) an account on the basis that the business had been a partnership; and (ii) a declaration that the guest house was held by Mr Rankine by way of a constructive trust for the benefit of both parties.
The claims for a partnership account and a beneficial interest were rejected. There was no evidence that could form the basis of a finding that the parties intended Mrs Geary to obtain a beneficial interest in the guesthouse at the time of the purchase or that such an intention arose subsequently. There was also no evidence that Mrs Geary had changed her position in reliance upon any assertion that she was to have an interest in the property. Her claim in relation to a business partnership was dismissed on the facts…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the No5 Chambers briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from No5 Chambers
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from No5 Chambers
How interesting: the public interest disclosure requirement of s.43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act
Not everything that may be interesting to the public is likely to be ‘in the public interest’. But is that a commonly held or understood view?
TUPE applies where a client decides to engage a new service provider instead of an existing one, but what if the client instructs the existing service provider to remove an employee from the contract before the TUPE transfer takes place?