The claimant had cared for his elderly mother who ‘shunned any type of ‘officialdom’ including doctors and home helps.’ However, the claimant so neglected her that she suffered severe bed sores which had become infected in consequence of her lying in her own excrement. The claimant had pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The court was asked whether he was nevertheless entitled to claim financial provision from the deceased’s estate under the 1975 Act, or was precluded from doing so by the 1982 Act.
Held: The claim had been made out of time and the court had no power to extend the statutory time limit. However. the claimant’s conduct did not disentitle him to relief under the 1975 Act and the court made an order for reasonable financial provision for the claimant out of his mother’s estate. The judge made reference to Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, helding that the right to inherit property under a will is a ‘possession’ within the protocol. A claimant was not to be deprived of it except in the public interest. The only way that the Forfeiture Act could be given effect in a way that is compatible with convention rights would be to construe it as conferring a discretion upon the Court to mitigate the harshness of the absolute rule where it is not in the public interest to deprive the wrongdoer of all benefit from the estate.
Alastair Norris QC said: ‘The forfeiture rule is a principle of public policy, the application of which may produce unfair consequences in some cases. It is not the statement of a principle of justice designed to produce a fair result: Dunbar’s case [1998] Ch 412, 422D-E, per Mummery LJ. There is a justifiable dissatisfaction with its indiscriminate application in every case of unlawful killing: per Phillips LJ in Dunbar’s case, at p.431G. Following Dunbar’s case however it is no longer possible to discriminate in the application of the rule, only to mitigate its effects where the ends of justice require. The rule will accordingly be applied even where the public interest does not require it (and even where its application may be contrary to the public interest) but in some circumstances its effects may be mitigated.
and: ‘The Forfeiture Act is concerned with the adjustment of property rights and confers upon an individual a right to apply to the Court within a defined period. It is a form of limitation period similar to that applying to applications for reasonable provision to be made out of the estate or for rectification of a will, but (unlike the statutes which confer those rights) the Act gives the Court no discretion to extend the time for commencement of the action.’
Judges:
HHJ Alastair Norris QC
Citations:
[2006] EWHC 2069 (Ch), [2007] 1 WLR 1009, [2006] WTLR 1447, [2007] 1 All ER 324
Links:
Statutes:
Forfeiture Act 1982 2, Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 2, European Convention on Human Rights 1
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Dunbar (As Administrator of Tony Dunbar Deceased) v Plant CA 23-Jul-1997
The couple had decided on a suicide pact. They made repeated attempts, resulting in his death. Property had been held in joint names. The deceased’s father asked the court to apply the 1982 Act to disentitle Miss Plant.
Held: The appeal was . .
Cited by:
Cited – Jenkins, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Coroner for Portsmouth and South and Others Admn 11-Dec-2009
The deceased had contracted gangrene, but not sought treatment, and he died of it. The claimant challenged the narrative verdict saying that it was perverse and that the only proper verdict was unlawful killing by his partner, a nurse who had . .
Cited – Mack v Lockwood and Others ChD 19-Jun-2009
The claimant had been convicted of the manslaughter of his wife. He now applied for relief agsinst forfeiture of his share of her estate. He was elderly and had suffered some mental impairment after a stroke, which might have led him to misjudge his . .
Cited – Challen v Challen and Another ChD 27-May-2020
Forfeiture rule disapplied after spousal abuse
The claimant sought the disapplication of the forfeiture rule. She had been convicted of the manslaughter of her seriously abusive husband. The court considered whether a conviction for murder set aside and replaced with one of manslaughter was a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Wills and Probate, Crime, Human Rights
Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.384056