jats:pThis paper considers the influence of the Supreme Court decision in jats:italicJones v Kernott</jats:italic> on subsequent cases. It focuses on situations with which jats:italicJones</jats:italic> was not directly concerned, namely where there is only one legal owner of a home and a non-legal-owning cohabitant seeks to establish that he has an equitable interest in it under a common intention constructive trust. The paper argues that while judges have mostly accepted that jats:italicJones</jats:italic> is relevant to such sole-owner cases, they have had few opportunities (and taken fewer) to move beyond the restrictive approach of jats:italicLloyds Bank plc v Rosset</jats:italic> and allow novel outcomes in the light of jats:italicJones</jats:italic> as yet. It is contended that this state of affairs could ultimately produce a conservative approach that is undesirable for cohabitants who make indirect or non-financial contributions to shared lives, and remain without comprehensive statutory property and financial provision on relationship breakdown.</jats:p>