On What Basis Did the Supreme Court in Jones V

On what basis did the Supreme Court in Jones v Kernott [2012] 1 AC 776 find that Mr Kernott was entitled to only a 10% share in the Thundersley home that had been purchased in joint names with Mrs Kernott in 1985?

A) Their Lordships were able to infer an intention from Mr and Mrs Kernott's words and deeds that the share was to be less than the original presumption of equal shares.
B) 10% was considered a just and fair outcome on the facts, in the absence of any common intention as to how the shares should be altered evidenced by Mr and Mrs Kernott.
C) Their Lordships felt able to impute an intention, in the absence of any express or inferred intention, that both Mrs and Mrs Kernott had intended to crystallise their interest when they separated in 1993 and tried to sell the home. 10% was the fair outcome in the circumstances.
D) Advancing part of the purchase money to the legal owner, with the intention that it would later be repaid with interest.