In re DWS, decd (EHS, decd, In re, TWGS (A Minor) v G)

The Court of Appeal held that the plain wording of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 governs succession on intestacy even where a nearer heir is disqualified by wrongdoing. A grandchild whose parent survived the intestate cannot inherit under section 47(1)(i) merely because the parent is disqualified. By contrast, where no issue attains an absolutely vested interest the estate is treated as if the intestate left no issue under section 47(2), permitting collateral succession under section 46(1)(v).

The appeal concerned succession on intestacy after two parents were murdered by their son. The grandson (through the son) claimed the estates as next friend, contending that the son’s disqualification should be treated as equivalent to prior death. The trial judge refused this claim but held that the sisters’ estates could inherit by construing s.46(1)(v) to require that there be no issue "capable of taking". On appeal counsel advanced competing constructions of ss.46–47 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925. The Court was asked whether disqualification of a nearer heir allows a more remote issue to take and whether the residuary estate fell to collaterals or to the Crown.

1. Overall disposition: The appeal was dismissed. The majority (Aldous LJ and Simon Brown LJ) held that the grandson could not inherit and that the sister's executors could inherit. Sedley LJ agreed that the grandson could not inherit but would have held that the estates became bona vacantia (the Crown) rather than allowing collateral succession.
2. Construction of s.47(1)(i): The wording is plain and repeatedly conditions a grandchild's entitlement on the predecease of the relevant child. Disqualification of that child does not amount to predecease. The court will not rewrite s.47(1)(i) to substitute disqualification for death. (See pages 88C; 92D; 95.)
3. Operation of s.47(2): Where issue fail to attain an absolutely vested interest the residuary estate is to be treated as if the intestate died without issue. The majority read s.47(2) to apply where disqualification prevents attainment of an absolutely vested interest. That construction prevents the estate lapsing unnecessarily to the Crown in the absence of any contrary indication. (See pages 95–97.)
4. Application to s.46(1)(v): On the majority view the phrase "no issue" in s.46(1)(v) should be read as "no issue capable of taking" in context where s.47(2) operates, thereby permitting collateral succession to the sisters' executors rather than bona vacantia. The alternative approach would require impermissible re-drafting of s.47(1)(i). (See pages 92–96.)
5. Public policy on forfeiture/disqualification: The existing rule disqualifies a murderer from inheriting but does not permit courts to ignore or rewrite statutory wording in order to prefer a remoter heir over a nearer one where the statute plainly prevents it. (See pages 88–95.)
6. Orders: Appeal dismissed; costs and ancillary orders as stated in the formal order.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the Chancery Division (Blackburne J). Judgment of Blackburne J of 5 March 1999 was considered and the appeal dismissed by this court. (See judgment of Aldous LJ; concurring and dissenting reasons by Simon Brown LJ and Sedley LJ.)