Withers Trust Corporation Limited v The Estate of Hannah Goodman

Relief from the forfeiture rule may be granted where, having regard to the offender’s and deceased’s conduct and all material circumstances, justice requires modification or exclusion of the rule. In assessing moral culpability, the court may consider prosecutorial guidance concerning assisted suicide, although the criminal prosecution decision and the forfeiture decision remain distinct. A deceased’s settled and freely made wish, compassionate motivation, reluctance, low culpability and the effect on intended charitable beneficiaries may justify relief. A tax advantage is generally irrelevant if the order is within the court’s jurisdiction, but the court must be satisfied that the order is proper where it confers a substantial benefit at the Revenue’s expense.

The claimant, the intending executor of Adrian Berry’s estate, sought relief under the Forfeiture Act 1982. Adrian had assisted his wife, Hannah Goodman, to end her life or had unlawfully killed her at her request. The forfeiture rule would otherwise prevent him from benefiting from Hannah’s estate and jointly owned assets.

The application also concerned representation of Hannah’s estate and costs. The central issue was whether the court should modify or exclude the forfeiture rule so that Adrian’s estate could receive the relevant assets, principally for charitable purposes.

1. The court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Adrian had either assisted Hannah to commit suicide or ended her life himself. The forfeiture rule was therefore engaged.
2. Under sections 2(1) and 2(2) of the Forfeiture Act 1982, the court had power to modify or exclude the rule where, having regard to the conduct of the offender and deceased and other material circumstances, justice required that result.
3. The relevant considerations included the relationship between the parties, moral culpability, the nature and gravity of the offence, the deceased’s intentions, the size of the estate and value of the property, the offender’s financial position, and the moral claims and wishes of those otherwise entitled to benefit, following the guidance in Dunbar v Plant. Moral culpability was the paramount consideration.
4. The evidence showed that Hannah had a settled wish to end her life and retained capacity. Adrian acted reluctantly, from compassion and desperation, without coercion or personal gain. His culpability was extremely low. The court considered prosecutorial guidance on mercy killings and assisting suicide as relevant to the moral assessment, while recognising that prosecution and forfeiture decisions were distinct.
5. The intended charitable purposes of Hannah and Adrian’s estates were materially aligned. The tax benefit resulting from relief was not itself determinative, but it supported the justice of the order. The principle stated in Re Goodchild (Deceased) applied: a tax-saving motive was generally irrelevant where the order was within jurisdiction, subject to ensuring that the order was proper where it gave a substantial advantage at the Revenue’s expense.
6. The justice of the case required relief. The court ordered full relief from forfeiture in respect of the relevant interests.