This week the Supreme Court published it’s long awaited decision in the landmark case Jones v Kernott. Ms Jones and Mr Kernott bought a house together, lived together but did not marry. Like many people who choose to buy property jointly, they did not enter into any formal agreement as to who owned what proportion of the property. The relationship broke down and Mr Kernott moved out. Ms Jones continued to maintain the property and to pay the mortgage as well as caring for the children. Many years later, Mr Kernott sought his share of the property.   Ms Jones and Mr Kernott disagreed on what was a fair share for Mr Kernott and seemingly so did several courts. Eventually it fell to the highest court in the land to make the decision. That decision gives those who choose to co-habit rather than marry the ability to seek different shares of  jointly owned property in the absence of any formal agreement.  

The court can now take into account the reality of who paid what to purchase and maintain a property. With more than two million individuals cohabiting in the UK, this is an important decision for unmarried couples who own property together and who have not entered into a declaration of trust or even a living-together agreement.

The decision is to be welcomed. The government has again declined to look at co-habitee laws  and this goes some way to addressing the unfairness that currently affects co-habitees. The cost of such a major change in the law, however, is certainty. Inevitably, it will lead to more and costly litigation. Certainly, those seeking to work out who owns what will need seek advice from specialist family lawyers.

It is to be hoped that this decision will encourage co-habitees who are joint owners of a property to make a formal agreements as to what proportion of the property each owns and what is to happen if the relationship breaks down.  It may be unromantic but it is in those circumstances sensible, reasonable and economic. Those who let their hearts rule their heads may find themselves part of the one of the inevitable increasing number of cases going to court which will have the combined nightmare of uncertainty and expense.

If you are interested you can find the complete judgment here.

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2010_0130_Judgment.pdf

Without hesitation or indeed having any idea what would be involved I agreed and found myself working in a law firm. Not doing anything clever, just trying to keep things running smoothly and the staff content. An easy enough job in an office with a staff of five who always agree with everything and don’t require any holidays. Unfortunately this is not that office. Then of course there is the feeling of trepidation when I realised that the people doing the clever stuff are all highly trained and qualified professionals.

Lawyers are a unique bunch (some might say odd but I think that’s a bit harsh). In an age when it seems the answer to everything is available on the internet, these people actually need to know stuff; some of it quite complicated stuff.

 As with any profession they have their own terms and phrases, many of which I find myself nodding in agreement with, and although often not knowing quite what they are on about, I think I’m getting away with it.

Of course anyone can get a degree and pass a few exams and that is not what makes my lawyers so special. I could paper my lounge with their certificates and qualifications but they also have the ability to convert the knowledge into practical help, with genuine enthusiasm, empathy and understanding.

It is fair to conclude that they very rarely see anyone that is not emotionally stressed, divorce isn’t fun. So right from the start when you need to know whether it should be collaboration, mediation, arbitration or just a good old fashioned divorce these personal attributes are critical to delivering a service that removes as much of the pain from the process as it is possible to do.

 I know they could bore me rigid with lawyer speak if they wanted to but I also know that they will not be shy about taunting me mercilessly on those rare occasions that Chelsea put in a below par performance. I hold no grudges and even supporting Newcastle, Liverpool, Arsenal or Manchester United doesn’t necessarily mean they are odd, it just proves that they are human and in spite of all the qualifications they don’t know everything.

 I went to see The Thin One. She lives in Norwich where she is studying to be a doctor. Bearing in mind my advancing age and increasing hypochondria I think she could be my favourite.

The Thin One is very thin, she has a genetic condition that makes her tall and thin and very gorgeous. She also eats like a horse. We spent a lot of the time in Restaurants, Waitrose or just ordering pizza to be delivered.

Anyway I digress, The Thin One through an accident of life has been able to buy a house on the otuskirts of Norwich just next to the University and the Hospital. It is a lovely house, she bought it off plan. It has 3 floors which helps keep her even thinner, 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms a lovely kitchen and sitting room and a just the right size garden. It is on an attractive new estate with a park, an outdoor gym, a doctors surgery a school and some shops. It is a bike ride into the city centre and 20 minutes drive to the sea and cost around £150,000.

Just for fun we went to look at the show houses. The largest one, 5 bedrooms 4 bathrooms was for sale for a whopping £299,000 and the builders are having problems selling it.

We all know that the economy is not very well and that borrowing is difficult. I, like many people listen to the news in the hope that the Chancellor or the Bank of England will do something to relieve the suffering. It seems to me and this may be very simplistic, that if people are not buying or selling houses then the Treasury is not collecting any Stamp Duty. So if the Chancellor were to take the brave and perhaps drastic step of suspending Stamp Duty on all properties say under £1 million then the Treasury would be no worse off. I suspect that the house buyers would become increasingly keen to move and the money they may have spent in Stamp Duty would go to buy carpets, curtains, fridges, washing machines, paint and all the stuff one buys when moving. That should give the economy a boost, keep people in employment who can pay tax and boost the treasury income.  

What do you think?

In many ways a pet takes more attention and is as a great a responsibility as a child. Fluffy or Fido or even Puff the komodo dragon are wholly dependent on us their human family for their very survival. Martha the Labrador is only 5kg overweight, she is telling me right now that she is close to starvation and a little biscuit could stave off the inevitable.

 So what happens when Mr & Mrs Fido Parent go their separate ways? It goes without saying, that mediation, collaborative law or a simple round the kitchen table discussion are available in sorting out who is going to look after Jonny The Kid on New Years Eve, what to do with the house, the villa in Barbados and that little nest egg in the Cayman Islands. Sometimes, not necessarily, because either party is behaving badly, people need to look to the courts and  arbitration to help them sort out their stuff. 

What to do with The Kid can be dealt with under the Children Act 1989. Assuming Mr & Mrs Fido Parent were married then the house, the villa, the bank accounts can dealt with under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.  There are guidelines in both pieces of legislation.

 This leaves us with Fido, Fluffy and Puff. If all discussions fail, what then?  The court will deal with them as chattels, things . Yes that’s right chattels as if they were the same as sofas, tables or TV’s. If you can’t agree who is to have the beloved pet on each alternate weekend and you look to the court, then The Married Woman’s Property Act 1882 is the statute you need. The judge will usually order the sale of all chattels but will no doubt make an exception for the fur family. What the judge won’t do is deal with the contact arrangements for your pets. He or she will simply give Fido to one, Puff to the other and Fluffy may have to fend for herself. Someone here has suggested that in the case of the family chicken it could all be sorted out over a BBQ. I think they mean that a friendly drink and bite to eat may help you come to an agreement.