Case study: the Forfeiture Rule in the case of unlawful killing

In the recent case of Leeson v McPherson [2024] EWHC 2277 (Ch) (6 September 2024), the Defendant, Mr Donald McPherson (“Mr McPherson”) was found to have unlawfully killed his wife, Ms Paula Leeson (“Ms Leeson”), in 2017 whilst the couple were holidaying abroad. This led to detailed consideration of whether the Forfeiture Rule applied here.

In this article, we will summarise this case and look at it from a legacy point of view with regard to the Forfeiture Rule.

The case

Ms Leeson was much loved by her family and friends and shared a close relationship with them. She died tragically on 6 June 2017 while on holiday in Denmark with Mr McPherson. Ms Leeson had recently turned 47.

The Defendant was charged with murder but acquitted by a jury after a successful no case to answer submission. However, based on evidence from a pathology report and some data gathered by a Fitbit, as well as a large amount of indirect and circumstantial evidence, Ms Leeson’s son, Ben Leeson, and father, William Leeson (“the Claimants”), argued that logical reasoning pointed to the conclusion that Ms Leeson was unlawfully killed by the Defendant.

As the Defendant had not been found guilty in criminal law, this meant that he would still benefit from Ms Leeson’s estate as a beneficiary. As such, the Claimants commenced civil proceedings against Mr McPherson in England and Wales.

It was the Claimants position that:

• Mr McPherson had unlawfully killed Ms Leeson, and had therefore lost any rights he might otherwise have enjoyed to benefit from her estate or her share of any jointly held assets (“the Forfeiture Claim”);

• Mr McPherson should be removed as a trustee of certain life insurance policies written in trust by Ms Leeson and replaced by the Claimants (“the Trust Claim”);

• Ms Leeson’s Will, which had purportedly been executed on 21 July 2014 (“the 2014 Will”) was invalid because Mr McPherson had forged the signature of one of the witnesses such that Ms Leeson died intestate; and

• Ben Leeson should be appointed as personal representative of Ms Leeson’s estate (together “the Probate Claim”). 

The trial took place between April and May 2024, and the Court heard from a number of witnesses which included 18 witnesses of fact and four experts. Mr McPherson did not attend the trial and was not represented. The Court found that Mr McPherson had deliberately chosen not to attend and therefore the trial was able to proceed in his absence.

The Court held that Mr McPherson had deliberately and unlawfully killed Ms Leeson by compressing her neck in an arm lock, rendering her unconscious, and causing her body to enter the pool to ensure her drowning and death. It was also held that Mr McPherson had a history of consistently lying to anyone if it might serve his interests, including the Court and the police, and that his motive for unlawfully killing Ms Leeson was money. In light of the above finding, the Forfeiture Claim was successful. 

The Forfeiture Rule 

This rule is recognised in Section 1 (1) of the Forfeiture Act 1982 as follows:

"In this Act, the "forfeiture rule" means the rule of public policy which in certain circumstances precludes a person who has unlawfully killed another from acquiring a benefit in consequence of the killing."

Interestingly, this case demonstrates that a criminal conviction is not essential for the Forfeiture Rule to be applied to a matter. The rule  can apply to a deceased’s Will and intestacy. It therefore applied here, even though the Court also found that the Defendant had forged the signature of one of the attesting witnesses to the 2014 Will, which was accordingly invalid. Ms Leeson therefore died intestate. 

The Court looked into relevant case law and found that the Forfeiture Rule also severed Mr McPherson and Ms Leeson’s joint tenancy of their former matrimonial home. Consequently, the proceeds from the sale of the home are now split, with Ms Leeson's share going to her estate and Mr McPherson keeping his share, each as separate owners of the property. Mr McPherson was prevented from inheriting anything from Ms Leeson’s estate. 

Conclusion

Before her death beside a shallow pool, Ms Leeson was in good health. Mr McPherson was the only one present at the scene, and he has a history of fraudulent behaviour and had covertly and dishonestly secured substantial life insurance policies on behalf of Ms Leeson. The court therefore found the Defendant was also manifestly unsuitable to act as a trustee of the LV and Scottish Widows life insurance policies and will be removed and replaced by Ben Leeson.

At the case’s conclusion, the Court agreed to uphold the objective of the Forfeiture Rule that prevents the person who unlawfully killed the deceased from benefiting, in any way, from their actions, including, in this case, through Ms Leeson’s Will, her intestacy, various life insurance policies, and by way of survivorship with respect to property previously held under a joint tenancy.  As such, Mr McPherson had also disqualified himself by his homicidal actions, meaning that the Probate Claim and the Trusts Claim were also successful. Ben Leeson was appointed as Ms Leeson’s personal representative of her estate.

The Claimants were praised by the Judge for showing enormous dignity during the proceedings despite the level of pain and heartache they were no doubt feeling as a result of Ms Leeson’s tragic death at the hands of Mr McPherson.