Henderson v Wilcox & Ors

The forfeiture rule applies to benefits or rights which arise, become enforceable, or accrue directly because of the deceased’s death or the offender’s criminal act. It does not affect pre-existing interests merely because the death later occurs. Accordingly, discretionary interests under family protection trusts were outside the rule where they arose from the trust instruments and trustee decisions. Relief under the Forfeiture Act 1982 is a broad discretion, but the court must be positively satisfied that justice requires the particular modification sought. The offender’s conduct, culpability, the deceased’s conduct, the parties’ relationship, financial circumstances, the estate and competing moral claims may all be relevant. Serious, repeated violence, deliberate concealment and high culpability justified refusing relief in this case.

Ian Henderson unlawfully killed his mother, Lillian Henderson, and was convicted of manslaughter. He was detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983. His mother’s will left her estate to him, subject to a substitute gift if he could not inherit. Before her death, both had also executed family protection trusts involving the claimant, his mother, other beneficiaries and solicitor trustees.

The claimant sought declarations that the forfeiture rule did not affect the trusts and an order under the Forfeiture Act 1982 modifying the rule so that he could inherit under the will. The central issues were whether the rule applied to the trust interests and, if so, whether justice required modification in relation to the testamentary gift.

1. Trust interests. The forfeiture rule concerns rights or benefits caused to arise, become enforceable or accrue directly from the death or criminal act. An interest already held before the death is not extinguished merely because the death occurs. This analysis was consistent with Cleaver v Mutual Fund Life Association [1892] 1 QB 147, Re Crippen [1911] P 108, Dunbar v Plant [1998] Ch 412 and Gray v Barr [1971] 2 QB 554.
2. The claimant’s status as a discretionary beneficiary under his mother’s trust arose when the trust was executed. His interest under his own trust represented property previously belonging to him. Benefits conferred by trustee discretion would arise from that decision, not from the death. The forfeiture rule therefore did not affect either trust, and no statutory relief was required.
3. Testamentary gift. Section 2 of the Forfeiture Act 1982 confers a flexible discretion. The court must consider the offender’s and deceased’s conduct and all material circumstances, and must be positively satisfied that justice requires the particular modification sought. Relevant matters include the relationship, moral culpability, seriousness of the offence, the deceased’s intentions, the estate, the offender’s financial position and the claims of persons who would otherwise benefit. The approach in Dunbar v Plant [1998] Ch 412 was applied.
4. The claim was timely and the statutory exclusion for murderers did not apply because the conviction was for manslaughter. Nevertheless, the assault was exceptionally serious and formed part of a prolonged course of violence. Although mental difficulties and the claimant’s dependence on his mother reduced culpability to some extent, he understood that his conduct was wrong, concealed it and manipulated others to prevent intervention. His continuing financial needs and his mother’s earlier wishes carried limited weight. Following Dalton v Latham [2003] EWHC 796 (Ch), sympathy was not the governing consideration.
5. The claim for modification of the forfeiture rule was dismissed.