From today's LSG:
Family lawyers have welcomed the Supreme
Court’s landmark judgment on the division of assets between former
cohabiting couples - but say
the case highlights the need for law reform.
The long-awaited
judgment in Jones v Kernott concerns beneficial interest in property where
the legal title is held in joint names by an
unmarried couple with no
express statement of how it is to be shared.
Led by Lord Walker
and Lady Hale, the court unanimously ruled that appellant Patricia Jones
(pictured, right) was entitled to retain 90% of the equity in a property
jointly owned with her former partner Leonard Kernott (pictured, left),
rather than the 50% prescribed by strict property law.
The
couple bought a house in 1985 in joint names using money from the sale of
Jones’ previous home as a deposit. They shared the mortgage and upkeep, but
Jones continued to live in the property and had been solely responsible for
its mortgage and upkeep for over 12 years following their
separation.
Law
Society president John Wotton said the judgment ‘moves the law forward
because it allows courts to reach a view about what the parties intended,
and what a fair outcome should look like’. However, he said the decision
did not go far enough to provide all cohabiting couples with clarity about
what happens to shared property on a relationship breakdown.
Successive governments have failed to legislate on the rights of
unmarried couples, despite the Law Commission’s proposals for reform.
Wotton said: ‘The confused state of the law continues to cause stress,
litigation and costs - and hence ultimately is damaging for families and
children.’
David Allison, chair of family lawyers group
Resolution, said: ‘The fact that it has taken four different hearings in
four different places to determine the outcome highlights that the law for
cohabitants is a mess and is in urgent need of reform.’ Current law ‘fails
to reflect the way people are choosing to live their lives’, he said.
Joanna Grandfield, family
barrister at national law firm Mills & Reeve, agreed
that the Supreme Court decision does not remove the ‘underlying’ need for
reform.
She said legislation is needed to reflect the society it
is supposed to serve, and to fill the ‘yawning gap’ in the protection of
and provision for cohibitants.
Philippa Cunniff, family law
partner at Turcan Connell, which has offices in Scotland and London,
contrasted the legal position with that in Scotland, where legislation
clearly defines the rights of former cohabitants.
Forum 
Scotland 
