Land v Land

The three-month period in section 2(3) of the Forfeiture Act 1982 is mandatory where the applicant has been convicted of an offence involving unlawful killing. The forfeiture rule applies to manslaughter, but its harsh consequences may be mitigated through the statutory schemes. Where relief under section 2 is unavailable because the application is late, section 3 permits an award under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, even where forfeiture prevents the applicant taking under the deceased’s will. The court must assess reasonable maintenance provision by balancing the statutory factors, including the applicant’s needs, resources, conduct and relationship with the deceased.

The claimant, the deceased’s only son and sole beneficiary, pleaded guilty to manslaughter after failing adequately to care for his mother during the final months of her life. He was convicted on 27 April 2004. His application for relief under section 2 of the Forfeiture Act 1982 was issued four working days outside the statutory three-month period.

The claim was amended to seek a declaration that the forfeiture rule did not apply and, alternatively, reasonable financial provision under section 2 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The issues were whether the time limit could be extended, whether the forfeiture rule applied to this manslaughter, and whether section 3 of the 1982 Act permitted a 1975 Act award.

1. Time limit. The application under section 2(3) of the Forfeiture Act 1982 was out of time. The provision creates a limitation period for proceedings seeking modification of the forfeiture rule. The court had no discretion to extend it. Authorities concerning procedural or administrative time limits did not apply to this statutory adjustment of property rights.
2. Scope of forfeiture rule. The court followed the reasoning in Dunbar v Plant [1998] Ch 412, treated there as part of the majority’s ratio, and adopted the approach followed in Dalton v Latham [2003] EWHC 796. The forfeiture rule applies to manslaughter notwithstanding the varying degrees of culpability involved. The proper means of mitigating harshness is statutory relief, rather than judicially restricting the rule according to the degree of culpability. The claimant therefore could not obtain a declaration that the rule did not apply.
3. Section 3 and reasonable provision. Section 3 of the 1982 Act was construed, so far as possible, compatibly with section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 8 of the First Protocol to the ECHR. It permits the court to make an order under the 1975 Act even though forfeiture, rather than the will itself, has prevented provision from passing to the claimant. The court declined to treat dicta in Re Royse [1985] Ch 22 as governing that construction.
4. 1975 Act assessment. As an adult son, the claimant could claim only such provision as was reasonable for his maintenance. The court considered his lack of capital, age, abilities, criminal record, housing need, relationship with the deceased, the estate’s resources, the absence of competing evidence from intestate beneficiaries, and his conduct. His culpable failure in the final months did not disentitle him to reasonable provision.
5. Order. The claimant was awarded £1,000 for immediate needs and the house was directed to be transferred to him outright. The remaining cash was to be distributed among those entitled on intestacy, with the order and administration arrangements to be worked out as necessary.

The judgment records the claimant’s original application in the Derby County Court and its subsequent amendment. No earlier judicial determination is stated.