Where one person unlawfully kills another, the killer usually forfeits their right to inherit any part of the deceased’s property or estate. This “forfeiture rule” is clearly set out in section 1 of the Forfeiture Act 1982. However, as a High Court ruling in an exceptionally sad case showed, the Court has the power to make an order modifying or excluding this rule under section 2 of the Forfeiture Act 1982 – particular in cases involving so-called 'mercy killing' or assisted suicide.
In the case of Withers Trust Corporation Ltd v The Estate of Hannah Goodman [2023] EWHC 2780 (Ch), a woman who was terminally ill with lung cancer had previously made a will on 4 February 2016 leaving the whole of her estate to her husband. If that gift were to fail, then her residuary estate would be held on discretionary charitable trust. The woman and her husband did not have any children.
The woman died at home in June 2020 and her husband took out a grant of probate to her estate. He subsequently made a Will on 2 November 2020, leaving his residuary estate to charity.
The husband took his own life in July 2022. Prior to his death, he wrote down instructions for his funeral and sent them to a local undertaker. He also sent a “self-composed” eulogy in which he stated that he found the last months of his life hard to bear on his own and “especially so because [Adrian] felt that it was by his own hand that he had released [Hannah] at her own wish from the impossible burden of dying of cancer”, indicating that he had a hand in her death.
Consequently, it was argued that since the husband either assisted his wife to commit suicide or ended her life at her request, public policy would bar him from benefiting from his wife’s estate – as enshrined in the longstanding forfeiture rule. The executor of the husband's estate, however, sought a judicial declaration that the forfeiture rule should not be applied to the husband's inheritance from his wife.
Ruling on the matter, the Court was satisfied from the husband's own records that he either assisted his wife to commit suicide or ended her life himself and found, on the balance of probabilities, that there was an unlawful killing. The Judge then proceeded to consider whether the conduct of the husband, the conduct of the wife and other relevant circumstances would justify modifying the general public policy rule. He found that the husband acted with extreme reluctance, in despair and as result of there not being no other help to end his wife’s suffering. This caused him unimaginable distress and he was ultimately unable to go on living with what he had done.
In granting relief from the forfeiture rule, the Court found that the husband's motives were entirely compassionate. What he did was consistent with his wife's own settled and informed intention to end her life. He had almost no moral culpability for her death and, had he lived, he would not have been prosecuted.
Inheritance disputes are, by their nature, sensitive matters. Our experienced team can advise you with care and sensitivity. Contact Mitra Mann m.mann@sydneymitchell.co.uk on contentious matters or Tracy Creed t.creed@sydneymitchell.co.uk on private client matters - call 08081668827.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
