Yesterday, the Supreme Court gave a landmark ruling in the case of Jones v Kernott, which deals with how jointly owned property should be divided when non married couples seperate. Mr Kernott claimed a share in the property 13 years after seperating, and the Supreme Court has ultimately decided that looking at the couples intentions when they seperated, he should receive only 10% of the value of the property, not 50% he was seeking. The media interest in this case has been intense as the potential impact is so significant on those who live together for 6 months or 60 years. Lynn Cowley of Nockolds LLP Solicitors is joining in the debate on BBC Radio Essex to explain cohabitation law as it stands today and how this ruling will impact on how future cases are handled. Nockolds LLP Family law experts will publish a briefing on the implications of this shortly, please email newsteam@nockolds.co.uk for your copy of this important practical guide.
Lynn Cowley (profile) 
Thursday 10th November 2011
Family & Matrimonial stories →
Looking After You stories →
Marketing stories →
Find out more about the legal changes that will have an impact on business owners in the next 12 months.
Darren Hayward, Managing Partner, provides a no nonsense summary of the impact of the Agency Workers Regulations which cuts through the hype and the scare mongering;
Alfonso Valero outlines the positive steps that have been taken to help businesses collect their debts abroad, and
Lynn Cowley, provides an essential guide to the issues facing business owners on divorce.
To find out more click here and download your copy.
To receive your free regular copy sign up here.
Alfonso Valero (profile) 
Bilyana Zilic-Munic (profile) 
Darren Hayward (profile) 
Erin Duffy (profile) 
Lynn Cowley (profile) Natalie Morris (profile) 
Pete Dodd (profile) 
Sarah Miles (profile) 
Monday 31st October 2011
Business Legal Advice stories →
Looking After You stories →
Nockolds LLP stories →
Moneyadviceservice.org.uk, is an entirely independent unbiased website, with wonderful resources including calculators, users can find out more about the financial implications of various scenarios and possible divisions. It also provides them with excellent explanations as to tax credits and the divorce process.
For more information goto www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk
Carolyn Hanes (profile) 
Debbie Tarling (profile) 
Francesca Cozens (profile) 
Lynn Cowley (profile) Pete Dodd (profile) Wednesday 10th August 2011
Family & Matrimonial stories →
“The answer is not for people to be denied access to justice or legal services but for the legal profession to change how they deliver these services”
With the announcement today by the Justice Minister, Jonathan Djanogly, concerning cuts to the Legal Aid Service and the introduction of mediation assessments for couples considering divorce, Nockolds LLP announce their new fixed fee funding for family matters.
With the announcement today by the Justice Minister, Jonathan Djanogly, concerning cuts to the Legal Aid Service and the introduction of mediation assessments for couples considering divorce, Nockolds LLP are concerned about the impact on the community. Lynn Cowley, Partner Nockolds Solicitors LLP, maintains that
“The answer is not for people to be denied access to justice or legal services but for the legal profession to change how they deliver these services”
With the reduction in public funding available to separating couples in family disputes, and the Government’s stated intention to withdraw legal aid funding entirely (except where there is physical violence), it will be up to couples to fund their own legal representation. Whilst the cost of a divorce can be relatively modest, it is the costs associated with sorting out finances, pensions and properties that can end up being expensive. Not only that, but at the beginning of the process there may be no idea as to what the eventual costs will be. The final bill is often a nasty surprise and the funding of those costs creates a lot of worry and concern. The remedy is not to avoid solicitors, as even a relatively straightforward situation can be complex involving property, foreign property, pensions and the need to consider future income. If agreements are not reached, and drawn up properly, there can be disastrous consequences for the future.
Nockolds have responded to today’s announcement concerning cuts to Legal Aid and the introduction of Mediation Assessments by introducing their fixed fee funding scheme in family matters and highlighting their Lawyer Mediator capability with Carolyn Hanes.
The scheme is designed to allow people access to justice and representation at Court in financial matters, when there is a relationship breakdown in marriage, the unmarried family and civil partnerships. It works on the basis that subject to a satisfactory means and merits test, the family team will evaluate the cost of taking the matter forward to cover all Court representation to a Final Hearing. A fee will then be determined. The fee will be based on lower hourly rates because the set up of the scheme is dependent on the matter being overseen by a partner, but daily aspects managed and effected by other personnel within the department to provide more value for money. The benefit is that once that sum is paid, the client need have no further worry at all about costs, and if they overrun, these will be met by Nockolds.
Public funding is not free in that any public funding in cases about money is paid back to the Legal Services Commission, attracting interest if the monies are not paid back straight away. Nockolds cannot offer a banking service to the clients but can offer certainty of fees and very good value for money.
Nockolds Managing Partner, Darren Hayward, says:
“We have always striven to provide a service to our community and have recently become acutely aware that some people are not getting the advice or representation they need. By agreeing a fixed sum which would be paid at the outset, and then carrying the risk for the client as to whether the matter is completed within that estimate or overruns, we will take away concerns about costs. We are confident about the effectiveness of our team and believe the task of managing the costs is ours. We wish to take away from the client the uncertainty and worry about legal fees, whilst at the same time providing them with a first rate service. As far as I am aware, this is the first scheme of its kind being launched. We are very pleased to announce that we have had significant interest from major Barristers Chambers and other professionals, who have joined Nockolds scheme and who are willing to provide their services under this arrangement. I am very proud that Nockolds is at the foremost in the market in responding to the current challenges.”
For anybody who may be interested in enquiring more about this scheme or applying, please contact:
Lynn Cowley, Partner in charge.
Lynn Cowley (profile) Wednesday 23rd February 2011
Family & Matrimonial stories →
Basically, Mr Kernott and Miss Jones bought a property in 1985, whereby 20% was put down by deposit by Miss Jones and the balance price was paid by way of an endowment mortgage. Mr Kernott took out a small loan the following year and built and extension which increased the value of the property. The parties had two children. They separated in 1993 and both believed at that point, they both had an equal share in the property. The problem arose because of what occurred subsequently.
Whilst they were separated, Mr Kernott bought another property in 1996 and cashed in a joint life policy that he and Miss Jones had owned. Miss Jones stayed in the house and paid the mortgage and the outgoings entirely herself, and also looked after the children with minimal, if any, help from Mr Kernott.
The matter came to the Court in 2008 as to whether the parties shares had changed after separation, because Miss Jones had paid all of the mortgage, had not received any child support, and Mr Kernott had since bought a separate property and did not make any contribution to his family. The Judge at first instance found that there had been changes and increased Miss Jones’ share to 90% of the equity. Mr Kernott appealed arguing he had a 50% interest but the High Court Judge dismissed Mr Kernott’s appeal and said that the Court was free to impute a common intention to both parties, where the intention of the parties cannot be inferred. The High Court said the Judge was quite right to impute that the parties intention was to change their beneficial interest because of the events and that “fair and just” was the appropriate criteria to quantify those interests.
Mr Kernott, appealed a second time to the Court of Appeal. In a judgment where all the Judges did not agree, on a majority of two to one, the Court of Appeal allowed the Appeal by Mr Kernott and found that the Judge at first instance was wrong in assuming or imputing that the beneficial interests had changed from 50/50 to 90/10. The Judge commented that this was a very cautionary tale and all unmarried couples, and solicitors who advised them, should study this. He said the difficult issue was where one party continues to live in the property and assumes sole responsibility for its maintenance and costs, and as in this case, not only supported herself, but also the parties children, paying the mortgage and all of the outgoings and all the repairs and improvements. The question was is this sufficient for the Court to properly infer that there was an agreement post separation that the parties interests in the property should alter? His basic answer to this was no. Those actions are not sufficient for a Court to infer that there was an agreement between the parties to change the basis upon which they held the property.
The Judge clarified that where unmarried couples own a property together, the starting point as to who owns what, is to look at the transfer document. The transfer document will set out the basis upon which the parties own the property and where there is joint legal ownership, anybody arguing against equal shares will have to prove the case. The unusual matter in this case, was the long period of delay after the parties separated (at that point it was always agreed that they had equal shares), and the time when the Court was determining this application, which was over 12 years later. However, even though Miss Jones had paid all the outgoings, the mortgage and looked after the children, this, in itself, was not evidence of the parties intentions. The Judge found that despite this, there was a lack of evidence about what the parties really intended They had not discussed the matter and just because Mr Kernott waited until the children were older, before he enforced his interest, was not evidence that he agreed that he should have less. In fact, that was consistent with the approach that a lot of parents take, when they wait until the children are older, before getting their money from the family home. Despite the actions by Miss Jones in this case, the Judge could not infer an intention from their conduct. Passage of time in itself is not a sufficient argument as was the fact that Miss Jones paid all of the outgoings.
The moral is, therefore, that where couples have bought property, they have agreed their interest, but then things change, they really do need to take advice immediately. Not doing anything, with one party paying all the bills, is not sufficient evidence to argue to a Court at a later stage, that it was intended that at that point that their interests should change or be varied. The Judge said that it is very important that the parties and those who advise them, take the greatest care over the transactions and must consider when they are buying the property and what happens if the relationship breaks down. What the parties have got to do is contemplate and address the unthinkable, namely that their relationship could break down.
In this sad case, whilst the Judge clearly had sympathy with Miss Jones, he found that he still had to allocate Mr Kernott his 50% interest, despite the fact that during the preceding 12 years, Miss Jones had brought up the children single handedly, paid the mortgage and single handedly maintained the home.
Therefore, for those parties that are unmarried, who own property, if there are any changes in your circumstances, or if you are worried at all in any way, do not delay seeking legal advice. For those who are contemplating going out and buying property jointly, with the party other than in a marriage or civil partnership, again contemplate the unthinkable to avoid positions like this arising.
If you would like to discuss any issues raised in this Update or any other family related matter please do not hesitate to contact Lynn Cowley and our Family Team on 01279 755777 or email family@nockolds.co.uk
Lynn Cowley (profile) Thursday 17th February 2011
Family & Matrimonial stories →
