Court Permits Wife Who Unlawfully Killed Her Husband to Inherit His Assets

22nd July 2020 By

Few would quarrel with the long-standing rule of law that anyone who unlawfully kills another is barred from benefiting, financially or otherwise, from his or her crime. In a unique decision, however, the High Court waived that rule in the case of an elderly wife who caused her beloved husband’s death by her careless driving.

The wife, who was in her 70s, was driving her husband home after they got lost on the way to his sister’s funeral. She had been behind the wheel for several hours; the conditions were wet and the light was fading. She drove at speed into a line of traffic at a roundabout, triggering a four-vehicle pile-up. Her husband, aged 81, was fatally injured. She subsequently pleaded guilty to causing his death by careless driving and received a 32-week suspended prison sentence.

Under her husband’s will, the wife would ordinarily have received the whole of his estate. As they jointly owned their home, his share in the property would also have automatically passed to her. Her entire inheritance was, however, placed in jeopardy by Section 1 of the Forfeiture Act 1982, which enshrines the rule that certain circumstances preclude a person who has unlawfully killed another from acquiring a benefit in consequence of the killing.

In arguing that the rule did not apply to her, the wife pointed out that her crime was not deliberate or intentional and that the death of her partner of 30 years was as much a tragedy for her as for anyone else. The Court acknowledged that the case raised issues on which there was no previous authority, but found that the forfeiture rule applies as much to those who cause deaths by careless or dangerous driving as it does to perpetrators of murder or manslaughter.

However, the Court decided that, on the particular facts of the case, it would be wrong for the forfeiture rule to apply so as to deprive the wife of the gift her husband had made to her in his will and his share of the matrimonial home, which they had built together. The Court exercised its power under Section 2 of the Act to modify the rule so as to avoid that unjust outcome.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Tempted By an Exotic Investment Scheme? Is It Too Good to Be True?

7th August, 2020 By

It is easy to be tempted by exotic investment schemes that promise spectacular returns. However, as a High Court case strikingly showed, they are often too good to be true and it is always wise to get an independent professional to check them out before parting with your money. More than 100 small investors were persuaded to dig into their pension pots to buy 15-year leases of trees which had been inoculated with truffle spores. They spent at least £6.5 million on almost 9,000 leases, at a price of between...

Divorce – Home-Maker Wife Compensated for Sacrificing Her Career

4th August, 2020 By

Despite the drive towards achieving economic equality between the sexes, it remains common for women to give up their promising careers to support their husbands and devote themselves to child rearing and home-making. An important High Court ruling addressed the burning issue of how such sacrifices should be quantified in money terms in the event of divorce. The case concerned a former couple who met when they were both working for a leading law firm. After their relationship blossomed, they decided that it would be inappropriate for them to continue...

High-Profile Homeowners Can Divert Footpath Away From Their Garden

30th July, 2020 By

Ramblers love footpaths, but the same cannot be said for landowners concerned to protect their privacy and security. That was certainly so in one case in which homeowners with a high media profile won the right to divert a footpath which crossed their garden within sight of their croquet lawn. The owners applied to the local authority for a diversion order in respect of about 228 metres of footpath which crossed their property. They said that ramblers on the path had a view of their private garden and could see...

High Court Acts to Rescue Company After Sole Shareholder's Death

27th July, 2020 By

If you are an entrepreneur and own your own company, that is all the more reason why you should take professional advice regarding the consequences that might arise on your death. In an unusual High Court case on point, a farm contracting business was left rudderless by the demise of its founder. The founder was the company's sole director and shareholder. His shares passed automatically to the executors of his estate when he died. However, the company was left without a director and its bank stated that it would not...