Kernott v Jones on BBC Breakfast

Earlier today I appeared on BBC Breakfast, to discuss the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kernott v Jones. Accompanying me on the sofa was Patricia Jones, whose appeal against the decision to award her former partner half the value of their jointly-owned property was upheld by the five Supreme Court justices who heard the case.

My previous posts about Kernott v Jones:

What the Kernott v Jones judgment means for cohabiting couples – a look at the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision for everyday families, along with the Supreme Court’s press summary.

Kernott v Jones in the Supreme Court: what you need to know – I wrote this post the day before the Supreme Court handed down the ruling, predicting the case’s outcome (correctly, as it turned out). This post is lengthy, but aims to provide a breakdown of the legal arguments for lawyers and non-lawyers alike.

Kernott v Jones: a case of square pegs and round holes – when the case was heard by the Supreme Court, back in May 2011, I argued that rigid and outdated property law was ill-equipped to regulate the end of a cohabitating relationship that had been every bit as financially complex as a marriage.

Of course, I am not the only lawyer to have blogged about Kernott v Jones this week. For those with an interest in the case, here are some different perspectives, including two from property lawyers:

Nearly Legal | Jones v Kernott: Ending the big debate? – “My hope is that this line of cases will somehow re-connect the law with everyday life to the extent that is possible.  It will undoubtedly lead to more litigation.”

Family Law | Hayley Trim’s Analysis – “I wonder how many judgments we will now see saying ‘I infer from the parties’ conduct that they intended that they would share the property in these shares. And in the alternative, even if it is not possible to infer such an intention, it is fair having regard to the whole course of dealing in relation to the property to impute such an intention to them.’ Probably quite a few.”

Law and Lawyers | Cohabitation: what about the house? Part 2 – “It is to be hoped that Jones v Kernott will have added some clarity to the law but statutory reform is urgently needed.”

Rowena Meager’s Property Law Blog | Jones v Kernott (Round 4) – “I read the Supreme Court’s judgment with a sense of disappointment.”

2 comments

Marilyn Stowe - November 11, 2011 at 6:54pm

And this is by far and away the best commentary I’ve seen yet.
The brilliant John Wilson QC and Prof Rebecca Bailey Harris:-
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed89478

Enjoy!

Samandar - July 8, 2012 at 11:06am

I guess there should be a Ministry to see all Government departments work co-operatively , rather than by confrontation.

Divorce Laws and all other laws essentially is against the Male Gender for all the centuries of bad they have done to women

I guess they must suffer for another 20 years , until someone introduces a fair law .

All must do Pre Nup.

Keep every single piece of papers , women & Men, and men may be then get a bit of fair deal,

Do not trust everyone who says they are going to give you a good advice, beware of the Loan when it is Legally Aided, very dangerous, 50% may go to solicitors, Barristers and Court,

work it out with brain and avoid fights.

Samandar

Leave a comment