The Forfeiture Rule UK (2026): Can a Killer Inherit Under a Will or Intestacy?

English law does not allow a person to profit from their own wrong. The forfeiture rule bars any individual who has unlawfully killed another from inheriting from the victim’s estate — whether under a will, under intestacy, as a surviving joint tenant, or from a pension fund. For murder the bar is absolute. For manslaughter and other unlawful killings, the Forfeiture Act 1982 gives courts a discretion to modify or disapply the rule where justice requires it.

Origins and Scope of the Forfeiture Rule

The forfeiture rule (sometimes called the “slayer rule”) has deep equitable roots. The foundational principle — nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria (no one can take advantage of their own wrong) — was applied to succession law in In re Sigsworth [1935] Ch 89. A son had murdered his mother, who died intestate. Had the rule not applied, he would have been her sole heir under the intestacy rules. Clauson J held that Parliament could not have intended the Administration of Estates Act 1925 to allow a murderer to inherit from his victim. The rule applied and the estate passed as if the son had predeceased his mother.

The rule was not codified until the Forfeiture Act 1982, which:

• Gave the court a statutory discretion to modify the rule in all cases except murder.
• Preserved the absolute bar for murder, expressly providing that the modification power does not apply where the offender has been convicted of murder (s5).
• Imposed a three-month time limit for modification applications from the date of the criminal conviction (s2(3)), with no court power to extend.

Where the Forfeiture Rule Applies

The rule has a broad reach. It applies to any benefit that arises as a consequence of the killing, including:

The rule also extends to benefits the killer received before the death that were conditional on the victim’s death occurring — for example, survivorship under a joint life policy that paid on the first death.

The Forfeiture Act 1982: Modification Discretion

Section 2 of the Forfeiture Act 1982 empowers a court to modify the effect of the forfeiture rule in any case except murder. The court looks at:

• The conduct of the offender — degree of moral culpability; premeditation vs impulse; provocation; mental impairment.
• The conduct of the deceased — whether they contributed to the circumstances (e.g. prolonged domestic violence).
• Any mitigating circumstances — such as the offender’s own vulnerability or dependence on the deceased.
• The interests of third parties — particularly dependent children of the offender or the deceased.
• The justice of the case overall.

Re K [1985] Ch 85: Full Modification

The most important modification case is Re K [1985] Ch 85, decided by Vinelott J. A wife had killed her husband during a domestic incident after years of physical violence and abuse. She was convicted of manslaughter (not murder). She applied under the 1982 Act to modify the rule so that she could inherit under his will and receive the survivorship share of their matrimonial home.

The court granted full modification: she was permitted to take all the benefits she would otherwise have inherited. The decisive factors were the severity of the husband’s longstanding violence, the minimal moral culpability of the wife in the circumstances, and the disproportionate injustice of the forfeiture rule applying in a case where the victim had substantially caused the fatal act. The Court of Appeal confirmed the order ([1986] Ch 180).

The Absolute Bar: Murder

Section 5 of the Forfeiture Act 1982 provides in unqualified terms that the modification discretion does not apply where the offender has been convicted of murder. The rule applies with full force regardless of any mitigating circumstances, regardless of the relationship between killer and victim, and regardless of any hardship to the killer or their dependants. The only exception is where the killer has not been convicted of murder — for example, because they were acquitted (including by reason of insanity) — in which case a civil court may find on the balance of probabilities that the killing was nonetheless unlawful, and the 1982 Act discretion then becomes available.

The absolute bar reflects the highest degree of moral culpability — premeditated unlawful killing — and Parliament’s considered decision that courts should not be empowered to allow murderers to inherit from their victims in any circumstances.

The Three-Month Time Limit: Critical and Unextendable

Under s2(3) of the Forfeiture Act 1982, an application for modification of the forfeiture rule must be made within three months of the conviction for the unlawful killing. The court has no power to extend this period. It is a strict limitation with no judicial discretion to relieve against it.

This creates an immediate practical urgency for anyone advising a person convicted of a killing who may otherwise benefit from the victim’s estate. The application should be prepared and issued promptly after conviction — delay risks permanent loss of the right to seek modification.

Estate Planning Implications

For most people, the forfeiture rule will never arise. But it has practical implications for drafting wills:

• Name substitute beneficiaries. If your primary beneficiary predeceases you (or is treated as having predeceased under the forfeiture rule), a well-drafted will should specify who takes the gift instead. Without a substitute, the gift falls into residue or may cause a partial intestacy.
• Survivorship conditions. A gift “to my spouse if they survive me by 30 days” protects against the failed survivorship scenario and is IHT-neutral under s92 IHTA 1984 for periods up to six months.
• Joint tenancy vs tenants in common. Joint tenants take by survivorship — the forfeiture rule severs the tenancy if one kills the other. Tenants in common have separate shares that pass under their individual wills and are unaffected by forfeiture (save that the killer cannot inherit the deceased’s share).
• Review pension nominations. The forfeiture rule applies to pension death benefits. Where a nomination would pass benefits to a killer, those benefits should instead pass to alternative nominees — update nominations regularly.

Frequently Asked Questions