Watt and Watt

In *Watt and Watt*, the Supreme Court of Victoria was asked to determine whether a husband, who had been found guilty of the murder of his wife, was entitled to a share of the matrimonial home which was held by the couple as joint tenants. The wife's estate, represented by her sister, argued that the husband should not benefit from his crime.

The central legal issue before the court was the application of the forfeiture rule, which generally prevents a person from profiting from their own wrongdoing. Specifically, the court had to consider whether this rule applied to disentitle the husband from inheriting any interest in the matrimonial home, notwithstanding the fact that the property was held under a joint tenancy, which typically passes automatically to the surviving joint tenant upon the death of the other.

Dessau J applied the forfeiture rule, holding that the husband was not entitled to any beneficial interest in the matrimonial home. Her Honour reasoned that the rule was not merely a rule of succession but a fundamental principle of public policy that prevented a wrongdoer from acquiring property as a result of their crime. The joint tenancy, while creating a right of survivorship at law, did not override the equitable principle that a person should not profit from their own criminal act. The court found that the husband's criminal act had effectively severed the joint tenancy, and he was therefore only entitled to his original beneficial interest in the property, not the entirety.

The court ordered that the matrimonial home be sold and the proceeds divided equally between the husband and the wife's estate.