Call for clarity on co-habiting couple laws after court ruling

YORKSHIRE lawyers are calling for greater clarity in the laws governing co-habiting couples.

The UK’s highest court has ruled that a man who left his partner nearly 20 years ago was not entitled to half the value of the house they shared.

Five Supreme Court justices allowed an appeal by hairdresser Patricia Jones against an earlier ruling that ice-cream salesman Leonard Kernott was entitled to 50 per cent of the value of the property in Thundersley, Essex – valued at £245,000 in 2008.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

They said Ms Jones, of Thundersley, was entitled to 90 per cent and Mr Kernott, of Benfleet, Essex, should get 10 per cent

The ruling, which followed a hearing in London, was the conclusion of a three-year legal battle, which had seen lawyers argue in a county court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

Lord Wilson, one of the Supreme Court justices who considered the case, also spoke of the “continued failure of Parliament to confer upon the courts limited redistributive powers in relation to the property of each party upon the breakdown of a non-marital relationship”, in his written judgment.

Adrian Clossick, an associate in the Leeds divorce department at Stewarts Law, said: “The decision has been broadly welcomed, not least by Resolution, the group who promote a non-confrontational approach to family law.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“Many view the decision as providing a just outcome to the particular circumstances of an unusual case. Others welcome the emphasis on reaching a fair outcome.

“But the decision is not without criticism. In particular, one has to question whether the decision will lead to greater uncertainty for cohabiting couples.

“The decision opens the door to unmarried couples arguing about what is a fair division of the equity in a property they lived in together.

“Co-habitants in Yorkshire will be left pondering what the decision means for them.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“It remains to be seen how the decision will be applied by the courts but one thing is clear; if cohabitants wish to have any certainty about what will happen to a property in the event of separation, their intentions need to be clearly recorded in a properly drawn up cohabitation agreement.

“That agreement should be kept under review and updated to take account of any life events.

“Equally, if you are separating and find yourself in the same position as Mr Kernott and want to protect your interest, make sure your intentions are properly recorded.

“Without that record, there is every risk of future dispute and uncertainty.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Mark Day, a partner and family law solicitor at Langleys in York, described the outcome of the case as a big step forward in reforming the law for co-habitees.

He added: “Until today the presumption was that a co-habiting couple who owned a house in joint names had an equal share. However, this presumption can be rebutted by evidence that it was not or ceased to be the common intention of the parties.

“The court has gone even further now, and said that, in the absence of clear intentions, the court is entitled to impute an intention which the court considers fair having regard to the whole course of dealings between them in the relation to the property.”