A Supreme Court judgment has brought new clarity to disputes involving co-habiting couples – but could open the door to more cases ending in court, according to a Midland legal expert.
More than half of couples between the ages of 16 and 44 are now co-habiting rather than being married and many will share ownership of their property – albeit without a formal agreement that dictates how it should be divided if the relationship breaks down.
It is generally accepted that, in the absence of a prior agreement, ownership of a property is shared equally between the two parties.
However, the Supreme Court’s ruling to uphold a court decision to award 90 per cent ownership of a previously shared property to Ms Jones in the case of Jones v Kernott, means that it is likely that courts will now decide who owns what on the basis of what is fair and can be inferred from their conduct.
Tim Reid, from the property dispute resolution team at Midland law firm Wright Hassall, feels that while this judgment is helpful it could see an increase in the number of cases taken to court.
He said: “This has been a long-awaited judgment in that it fills a few gaps in the law relating to co-habiting couples.
“It tells us that from now on, when the parties do not have a declaration of trust in place, the courts will step in and make an inference as to what is fair whereas in the past, if there was no pre-agreement the ownership would be split 50/50 unless stringent tests were met to justify departing from such split.
“Not only is this a good thing in that people will receive what they are entitled to but it helps us as solicitors to provide more accurate, detailed advice to people looking to make such a case, as there is a greater understanding of what to expect.
“However, although it is a useful decision, it does not provide absolute certainty. Potential litigants might now feel they can gain a greater proportion of the ownership after this judgment which may encourage more people to pursue a case through the courts.”
