An insight into the Forfeiture Act 1982

The Forfeiture Act 1982 prevents anyone guilty of unlawfully killing someone from receiving anything from their estate. This means that if someone kills someone in order to benefit from their estate, this act prevents them from benefitting, through either being a beneficiary or through the rules of intestacy.  This law also prevents someone who may have unlawfully aided, abetted, counselled or procured the death from benefitting too. This rule was put into place because was unequitable and against public policy for anyone to benefit from killing someone.

The courts recently had to rule on whether a person had unlawfully killed their wife even though no criminal prosecution had taken place.

Background

On 6 June 2017, Paula Leeson (Paula) died in a swimming pool whilst on holiday with her husband, Donald McPherson (Don) in Denmark. Don had given 3 different explanations for Paula’s death to the authorities, which included that she was ill, she could not swim and that she was prone to fainting.

Don was charged with her murder and was taken to court. During his trial the jury gave a verdict of “not guilty”, which was supported by the fact that the evidence produced during the trial was not enough to convict him.  During his trial, Don submitted that there was no claim to answer.

Don’s Background

Don had been convicted of 31 dishonest offences in 3 different countries prior to his relationship with Paula.

During his relationship with Paula, he had taken out 7 insurance policies, ensuring that they would pay out to the surviving spouse if the policyholder was to die. These were subsequently cashed out following Paula’s death. Don had also started taking part in expensive hobbies which he could not afford which resulted in Don accumulating a huge amount of debt. Don had assured those he owed money to that he would pay them back as he should soon be receiving a lot of money.

Don had booked the holiday to Denmark, whilst taking out 3 travel insurance policies.

Civil Court Trial

Both Paula’s father (Willy) and son (Ben) took the evidence from the previous trial to the civil court in an effort to prevent Don from inheriting under Paula’s estate. They had 3 separate claims:

1. Don unlawfully killed Paula, so should not be entitled to Paula’s estate
2. Paula’s will should be declared invalid because Don forged the signature of a witness
3. Don should be removed as a trustee of life policies written in trust by Paula. Willy and Ben wished to replace Don as trustee.

Civil Court Judgement

It was found that Don had unlawfully killed Paula by compressing her airways in an arm lock. This resulted in her becoming unconscious and falling into the pool and drowning. This meant that Don was prevented from inheriting from Paula’s estate, as explained in The Forfeiture Act 1982.

As a result, Don did not benefit from any of Paula’s assets. This included her insurance policies, Will or jointly shared assets.

It was also held that Paula’s Will was invalid due to the forged signature. This meant Paula’s estate passed through intestacy, without Don benefitting. Ben was then appointed personal representative.

Ben and Willy were also appointed trustees of Paula’s policies.