Analysis
The claimant had been convicted of the manslaughter of his mother (the deceased). He had a low IQ though there was no clear medical view that he suffered from a mental disorder. However, he had not argued that he was unfit to plead and he had not raised a defence of diminished responsibility. He was sentenced to be detained in hospital under s37 of the Mental Health Act 1983. He was detained in a medium security establishment, and it was considered unlikely that he will ever be fit for discharge.
The deceased’s house did not form part of her estate. It had previously been held as joint tenants by the deceased and the claimant. However, in or about May 2011, the house was transferred into the names of the deceased, the claimant and the two solicitor trustees. At about the same time, the deceased and the claimant each executed settlements referred to as ‘family protection trusts’. The effect of these declarations of trusts was to sever the joint tenancy. The trusts declared were that the property was held on trust for the deceased, subject to powers to apply income or capital at the discretion of the trustees for the benefit of any of the named beneficiaries. The claimant’s trust was in mirror image terms, save that it also named a personal friend and an animal charity as additional discretionary beneficiaries.
As the deceased had died as a consequence of his own criminal act the claimant was excluded from benefiting under the deceased’s estate by reason of the application of the forfeiture rule. The claimant therefore sought an order under the Forfeiture Act 1982 to enable him to inherit his mother’s estate. He also sought to establish that the forfeiture rule did not apply to the family protection trusts. The professional trustees of the trusts and the executor and beneficiaries of the estate did not take any part in the application.
Held:
- 1) The forfeiture rule was a rule of common law and had not been codified by the Forfeiture Act 1982. It affected rights which were caused to come into existence, or to be enforceable, or where the benefit to the offender was caused to accrue, directly by the death or the criminal act connected with that death. The benefit under the family protection trusts did not arise from the death of the deceased. Accordingly the forfeiture rule had no application, and no question of relief under Forfeiture Act 1982 arose.
- 2) The power under the Forfeiture Act 1982 was discretionary, and required the court to be satisfied that the ‘justice of the case’ required the requested modification of the rule. The court may disapply the rule in respect of part or all of the property affected by it, and, where different interests are created in property, in respect of all or any of those interests.
- 3) The court was required to have regard to the conduct of the offender and of the deceased and other circumstances which appeared to be material. This might include the relationship between them; the degree of moral culpability for what has happened; the nature and gravity of the offence; the intentions of the deceased; the size of the estate and the value of the property in dispute; the financial position of the offender; and the moral claims and wishes of those who would be entitled to take the property on the application of the forfeiture rule.
4) In the circumstances of the case, it would not be appropriate to exercise the discretion to modify the application of the rule. Although the claimant’s culpability had been diminished by his low IQ, this was a very serious offence, and the claimant knew the difference between right and wrong. Sympathy for the application was not a guiding factor for the court.
Continue reading "Henderson v Wilcox [2015] EWHC 3469 (Ch)"