Case Study: Will Disputes Following an Unlawful Killing

LEESON & ANOR V MCPHEARSON

It is not often that in order to decide a civil case, the courts must consider whether a crime had taken place. However, in the recent case of Leeson & Anor v McPherson, the Honourable Mr Justice Richard Smith was required to do just that.

Paula Leeson and her husband Donald McPherson were staying at a Danish holiday cottage in the summer of 2017. Unfortunately, on 6 June 2017, Paula tragically died when she drowned in the cottage’s swimming pool. Initially, Paula’s death was treated as accidental by Danish authorities.

Having taken out a number of insurance policies prior to the couple’s trip to Denmark (without Paula’s knowledge), Donald stood to gain approximately £3.9 million from his wife’s death.

However, after further investigations, Donald was eventually arrested and charged with the murder of his wife. Whilst the matter proceeded to a criminal trial, the Judge directed the jury to return a “not guilty” verdict after Donald’s legal team successfully argued that there was no case to answer (meaning there was insufficient evidence for a safe conviction).

Following the outcome of the criminal case, Paula’s son Ben Leeson and her father William Leeson commenced civil proceedings against Donald. The claim consisted of 3 parts:

1.  Donald unlawfully killed Paula, so he had lost any rights he might have benefited from, under Paula’s estate or her share of jointly held assets (“Forfeiture Claim”)
2. Paula’s will, allegedly executed on 21 July 2014, was invalid because Donald forged the signature of one of the witnesses, meaning Paula died intestate.  They were also claiming that Ben should be appointed as personal representative of Paula’s estate (“Probate Claim”).
3. Donald should be removed as a trustee of certain life insurance policies written in trust by Paula, and replaced by Ben and William (“Trusts Claim”)

The case proceeded to trial, and was heard at The High Court in Manchester between 15 April and 7 May 2024.

Despite having engaged with the claim previously, Donald did not attend the trial and chose not to be represented. When considering whether the trial could continue in his absence, HHJ Smith determined that Donald deliberately absented himself, and that the trial should proceed as planned.

Throughout the trial, the Court heard from 18 witnesses of fact and 4 expert witnesses, as well as taking into consideration documentary evidence presented by the Leeson’s legal team.

Having considered all of the evidence presented to it, the Court decided that Donald deliberately and unlawfully killed Paula 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.

Having made the above decision, the Court went on to consider each element of Ben and William’s claim:

Forfeiture Claim: Successful

The “forfeiture rule” is a well-established principle of public policy in England and Wales, which states a person who unlawfully kills another should not be allowed to benefit under the deceased’s will or intestacy or in any other way.

As HHJ Smith had decided that Donald unlawfully killed Paula, he concluded that the forfeiture rule was applicable in the circumstances. As a result, Donald was prevented from acquiring any benefit under Paula’s will, her intestacy or any property formerly held by her under a joint tenancy.

Probate Claim: Successful

One of the 4 expert witnesses who gave evidence at the trial, was a forensic handwriting expert. In their opinion, the signature of Brian McAuley (a witness to Paula’s will) had not been applied by Mr McAuley. Rather, it had been Donald who forged the signature. This was further supported by the fact that the signature was misspelt, and Donald had previously used Mr McAuley as a false witness to his own official documents.

Therefore, HHJ Smith determined that Paula’s 2014 will was invalid and declared that she died intestate.  He also appointed Ben as the Personal Representative of his mother’s estate.

Trusts Claim: Successful

There were two insurance policies of concern in this case, both of which created trusts of which Donald was the sole Trustee. This meant that he had sole control over the funds released under the policies.

Ben and William’s argument for Donald to be removed as Trustee of the two trusts was that it was prudent and necessary on the basis of his unlawful acts, dishonesty and unsuitability.

HHJ Smith stated that he had no hesitation in concluding that the case for removal of Donald as Trustee of the trusts was overwhelming. Therefore, Donald was removed as Trustee, and replaced by Ben.

In his concluding remarks, HHJ Smith acknowledged the “pain and heartache” that the Leesons experienced as a result of Paula’s death, particularly in the dreadful circumstances of her unlawful killing “at the hands of Donald”. 

The civil case against Donald included a range of significant new evidence, that had not previously formed part of the criminal prosecution in 2021. According to the solicitors who represented the Leesons, the family believes that this new evidence, and the civil judgment, will enable Greater Manchester Police and the Crown Prosecution Service to re-open the criminal investigation into the case.

This case is a prime example of how on occasions criminal law can overlap with civil law, albeit a rare occurrence.

Our knowledgeable commercial litigation team has experience acting for both Claimants and Defendants in Wills and Probate disputes. Whether you are looking to bring a dispute, or find yourself having to defend one, our solicitors are on hand discuss your matter in detail.

For a free no obligation discussion, please contact us on 0121 355 0011 to see how we may be able to help you.