Legal Research
Cases
Edwards v State Trustees Ltd

Edwards v State Trustees Ltd

Case [2016] VSCA 28 10 March 2016

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2014 0113

JEMMA ELIZABETH EDWARDS	Appellant
v
STATE TRUSTEES LIMITED (ACN 064 593 148)	First Respondent
MEGAN EDWARDS	Second Respondent
JEANNIE ELIZABETH DAY	Third Respondent
PETER MacCALLUM CANCER INSTITUTE	Fourth Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WHELAN, SANTAMARIA and KYROU JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	5 March 2015, 18 December 2015 (mention), 3 February 2016 (further written submissions), 7 March 2016 (further mention)
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 March 2016
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSCA 28
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2014] VSC 392 (McMillan J)

---

WILLS AND ESTATES – Forfeiture rule – Appellant convicted of defensive homicide of husband – Appellant principal beneficiary under husband’s will – Whether rule flexible in nature – Whether rule equitable in nature – Authorities on operation of rule to manslaughter reviewed – Nature and scope of rule discussed – Helton v Allen (1940) 63 CLR 691 and Troja v Troja (1994) 33 NSWLR 268 considered – Cases of manslaughter to be considered on case-by-case basis – In circumstances of this case, appellant not entitled to benefit from the death she caused – Rule applies to prevent appellant from inheriting – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr A Panna QC with Mr J D Mattin	Wood Fussell
For the First Respondent	Mr R R Boaden	State Trustees Limited
For the Second Respondent	On 5 March 2015:	No appearance
On 18 December 2015 and 7 March 2016: Mr J L Smith	Gadens Lawyers
For the Third Respondent	No appearance
For the Fourth Respondent	On 5 March 2015:	No appearance
On 18 December 2015 and 7 March 2016: Mr B Barr	Allens

WHELAN JA:

I have read in draft the judgment of Santamaria JA.

The general principle articulated in Cleaver v Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association[1] and in In the Estate of Crippen,[2] is that no person can obtain, or enforce, any rights resulting to them by their own crime. In the context of wills, and inheritance, this is often called ‘the forfeiture rule’.
[1][1892] 1 QB 147 (’Cleaver’).
[2][1911] P 108 (‘Crippen’).

The articulation and application of the forfeiture rule in cases of murder is clear and uncontroversial.[3] The articulation and application of the rule to unlawful killings which are not murder is more difficult. As Santamaria JA has pointed out, there is no rule which applies so as to preclude the taking of a benefit in all cases of manslaughter. Santamaria JA concludes that, however the rule is formulated, it precludes the taking of a benefit where the death is brought about by deliberate, intentional and unlawful violence or threats of violence. He considers that it would not apply where the circumstances were such as to preclude rational judgment. He accepts that the rule could extend to cases of manslaughter other than cases where there was deliberate, intentional and unlawful violence, but does not consider this to be an appropriate occasion for a reconsideration of the so…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Edwards v State Trustees Ltd

Details

AGLC: Jemma Elizabeth Edwards v State Trustees Limited (ACN 064 593 148) , Megan Edwards , Jeannie Elizabeth Day and Peter MacCALLUM Cancer Institute [2016] VSCA 28
Case: [2016] VSCA 28
Decision Date: 10 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Edwards was the appellant in a case brought before the court, contesting the application of the forfeiture rule in the context of her inheritance from her late husband, who she had killed in a defensive act. The case was heard by the court, which had to determine the applicability of the forfeiture rule in the circumstances of this case. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the forfeiture rule, which prevents a person from benefiting from the death of another, is flexible and equitable in its application. The court had to review the authorities on the operation of the rule to manslaughter and discuss its nature and scope.

The court's reasoning involved a detailed examination of previous cases, including Helton v Allen and Troja v Troja. The court found that the forfeiture rule should be considered on a case-by-case basis, particularly in instances of manslaughter. The court held that the rule applies to prevent the appellant from inheriting from her late husband, as she had caused his death in a defensive act. The court concluded that the forfeiture rule is necessary to prevent individuals from benefiting from the very act that led to the death of another person. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was not entitled to inherit from her late husband.

The court's decision in this case reinforces the application of the forfeiture rule in cases where the beneficiary of an estate has caused the death of the deceased. This ruling highlights the importance of the rule in preventing individuals from benefiting from their own wrongdoing. The court's consideration of previous cases and its analysis of the nature and scope of the rule demonstrate the importance of a flexible and equitable approach to the application of the forfeiture rule in cases of manslaughter.

Orders