Our website is set to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click "Continue" or simply continue browsing. Continue.

Family Law

The leading authority on all aspects of family law

Court of Protection Practice and Procedure Conference 2016

A comprehensive guide to best practice and current thinking

07 MAR 2016

Imputing intention and the family home

Barrister and Professor of Property Law

Imputing intention and the family home
This article seeks to address the question whether it is possible to impute to the parties a common intention to share beneficial ownership in the family home at the acquisition or change of intention stage of establishing a constructive trust in single and joint ownership cases.

The article examines a number of first instance and Court of Appeal decisions since the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, [2012] 1 FLR 45 which appear to accept a process of imputation at only the second (assessment) stage of the analysis.

Interestingly, however, in Jones itself, Lord Wilson left open the possibility of allowing the common intention required at the first stage to be imputed if it was not otherwise identifiable by express discussions or inferred from the parties’ whole course of conduct. Most recently also, Mostyn J, in Bhura v Bhura (No 2) [2014] EWHC 727 (Fam), [2015] 1 FLR 153, when rehearsing the applicable principles, summarised the effect of Jones by essentially collapsing the traditional two-stage analysis into just one question of identifying the parties’ common intention by reference to a genuine agreement, inference from conduct or by imputed agreement aimed at delivering fairness.

In the final analysis, imputation may be justified because it permits the court to arrive at a solution which objectively reflects the parties’ reasonable expectations. If that is right, then the question must be asked as to why a similar exercise may not be adopted at the initial stage of the enquiry. Why not impute a common intention reflecting what the parties (as reasonable persons) must have intended by reference to all the facts so long as this does not override what the parties actually intended?

The full version of this article appears in the February 2016 issue of Family Law.

Online subscribers can access the full version of the article here.

For details on how you can subscribe to Family Law or for any offers, please contact a member of our sales team: Tel 0117 918 1555, or email: editor@jordanpublishing.co.uk
Family Law Reports

Family Law Reports

"The unrivalled and authoritative source of judicially approved case reports, covering all areas...

More Info from £166.00
Available in Family Law Online

Family Law


"the principal (monthly) periodical dealing with contemporary issues" Sir Mark Potter P

More Info from £49.00
Available in Family Law Online
Subscribe to our newsletters