I sat inside court 1 at the Supreme Court in Westminster today, eagerly awaiting a verdict from five Law Lords on who was entitled to what share, in a three bedroom bungalow in Essex. Something as common as the breakdown of a relationship and the sharing of assets should never have reached the dizzy heights of ‘Supreme’ justice. But, as the law stands, it is only through the divorce courts and the dissolution of a marriage that judges can appropriate beneficial interests like property, to parties involved. If there is no marriage, then the relationship does not enter the court process and the couple are left to play Russian Roulette in an unfamiliar world of expensive lawyers and court hearings.

The landmark case I was sitting through had roots in 1985 when Ms Jones sold her mobile home, putting £6,000 down as a deposit on a £30,000 bungalow; an ‘act of love’ she claims for her and her partner Leonard Kernott. According to the Supreme Court Press Summary, ‘No declaration was made as to how the beneficial interest in the property was to be held.’ And off they went. Everything was fine for some years, both taking out a loan in 1986 of £2,000, extending the property and making it more comfortable for them and their two young children.

In 1993, things started to fall apart and Mr Kernott was asked to leave the family home. Only in 2006, and after the value of the bungalow had reached a value of around £200,000 did he come forward to claim a stake. Unfair? That is what the County Court declared in 2008, awarding Mr Kerr a minmal 10% share of the property now worth £245,000.

This decision was upheld again in the High Court in 2009 on appeal from Mr Kernott, unhappy with the £24,355 on offer. Already racking up court and lawyers fees in the tens of thousands of pounds, Mr Kernott appealed… again, but this time in a landmark ruling by three High Court judges Mr Kernott was awarded an equal, 50% share in a property that he had not contributed to since 1993. Fair?

Lawyers across the country sat up and took notice. It presented a dilemma for practitioners of law in advising cohabitees on the current legal aspects of their property when the current law was balanced on a knife edge. Patricia Jones, the Appellant, told me that the wait for the verdict was “excruciating” if the Supreme Court didn’t uphold the appeal, the house that she has worked hard to sustain on her own for nearly twenty years would have to be sold to pay the lawyer and court costs, as well as £100,000 to Mr kernott, forcing her and her children onto the street. Fair?

Today five Law Lords handed down a victory for common sense and a cruel blow to Mr Kernott, who, through the advice of his lawyer, must now face paying tens of thousands of pounds in court costs as no legal aid or Conditional Fee Arrangement was available. This inevitably dwarfed the insignificent 10% that was first awarded to him at the County Court and which the original ruling the Law Lords have now restored.

On approach, Mr Kerr regrets ever taking things this far stating: “The amount of stress and pain this has caused myself and my children has been terrible and the costs are going to crucify me.” Patricia Jones said: “I am drained by the whole experience and I warn anyone who goes into a relationship to consider that the worst could happen and not to leave property rights to chance, but be responsible and seek early legal advice”.

Whether you feel this ruling is fair or not, this cautionary tale should reverberate through the minds of every young couple embarking out on a relationship together. Will young cohabitees now heed the advice of those bitten by huge financial costs, feeling that ‘common sense’ now outweighs ‘love’? Is it possible to live together, unmarried, but incongruous under the security blanket of a legally written document? Or will ‘love’ keep taking its toll on us, romance superseding prudence, perpetually nourishing the courts and its lawyers? There was only one winner today and it wasn’t Patricia Jones.