A Lesson on The Forfeiture Act
A Lesson on The Forfeiture Act
In September, the case of Leeson & Another v McPherson considers the forfeiture rule and how it can impact upon the ability to make a claim on a life insurance policy or inherit from an estate, when an unlawful killing is involved.
Paula Leeson died whilst on holiday in Denmark having drowned in a swimming pool. The Danish authorities initially concluded that Paula’s death was accidental. Later, her husband Donald McPherson was charged with her murder but at the criminal trial in Manchester Crown Court, the jury were directed by the judge to return a verdict of ‘not guilty’ following Donald’s lawyer’s successful submission of ‘no case to answer’.
However, Paula’s adult son Ben Leeson and her father William Leeson issued civil proceedings claiming that:
- Donald had unlawfully killed Paula and as such had lost any rights to benefit from her estate or her share of any jointly held assets.
- Donald should be removed as a trustee of life insurance policies written in trust by Paula.
- Paula’s Will executed on 21st July 2014 was invalid as one of the witnesses’ signatures had been forged by Donald.
- Ben should be appointed as the personal representative of Paula’s estate.
Section 1 of the Forfeiture Act 1982 (“the Act”) states:
“(1) In this Act, the “forfeiture rule” means the rule of public policy which in certain circumstances precludes a person who has unlawfully killed another from acquiring a benefit in consequence of the killing.”
This means that if someone unlawfully kills another then if in any way, they would have been a beneficiary of the victim’s estate, then they would forfeit any inheritance that they may otherwise have been entitled to.
Despite the acquittal in the criminal proceedings, Mr Justice Smith found “without hesitation” that Donald had deliberately and unlawfully killed Paula by compressing her neck in an arm lock, which caused her to become unconscious and then moving her to a shallow swimming pool and leaving her there to drown.
Under the Act, Donald would have forfeited any right to benefit from Paula’s estate or the £3.9m in life insurance policies which he had taken out in Paula’s name, some of which were even taken out without her knowledge.
The judge also found that Donald had dishonestly forged trust documents to give himself control over monies that would have become payable on Paula’s death. In the light of this Mr Justice Smith decided that Donald was manifestly unsuitable to act as a trustee and as such it was ordered that he be removed and replaced by Ben.
Paula’s alleged last Will dated 21st July 2014 was held to be invalid for want of due execution under s.9 of the Wills Act 1837, as Donald had dishonestly forged one attesting witness’s signature. This meant that Paula died intestate. Finally, it was then ordered that Ben would be appointed as the personal representative of his mother’s estate such that Ben and William succeeded on all aspects of their claim.
The judgment not only prevents Donald from benefitting from Paula’s death but also it could mean that criminal investigations might be reopened based on the findings in the civil case on the basis that new evidence was found during investigations within the context of the civil proceedings which was not available during the earlier criminal proceedings.
Get in touch with our Contentious Probate team
To speak to a member of our expert team about a will dispute, contact us today by calling 0330 175 7609 or email us at enquiries@ibblaw.co.uk.
