Re K (deceased) [1985] Ch 85, ChD
Joint Tenancy – Severance – Manslaughter – Forfeiture
Facts
A husband and wife were in a marriage marred by domestic abuse. The wife had suffered physical violence for a long period. Upon being attacked by her husband she picked up a loaded shotgun and took off the safety catch intending to threaten him. Unfortunately, she accidently shot and killed him. She was tried for murder and being found guilty instead of manslaughter. The husband had bequeathed her £1,000. The husband’s estate wished to rely on the provisions of the Forfeiture Act 1982 to ensure that the joint tenancy was severed and the husband’s beneficial interest vest in his estate.
Issues
Whether the wife was prevented from benefitting from her husband’s will by the provisions of s2(2) Forfeiture Act 1982. Whether forfeiture resulted in the automatic severing of their joint tenancy.
Decision/Outcome
The court held that the wife could be relieved from the strict provisions of the Forfeiture Act 1982 and that the Court had discretion to order relief where necessary. Whilst a threat of violence was sufficient for forfeiture to occur, taking into account the wife’s financial position and the extreme hardship this order would cause, and taking into account the conduct of the parties themselves, it was right for the court to exercise its discretion under s2(2) Forfeiture Act 1982 and so to order relief from this. Severance of a joint tenancy would occur in the event of a beneficiary unlawfully killing another beneficiary as had happened in this case, but the Court felt it right to exercise its discretion to modify the effect of the rule and ensure that the joint tenancy remained un-severed in this case.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary is broadly accurate in its description of Re K (Deceased) [1985] Ch 85 and its application of the Forfeiture Act 1982. However, readers should note one factual inaccuracy in the summary as presented: the wife was convicted of manslaughter, not murder — the summary incorrectly states she was ‘found guilty instead of manslaughter,’ which appears to be a drafting error that inverts the actual outcome (she was acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter). This distinction is legally significant, as the Forfeiture Act 1982 applies to unlawful killing falling short of murder, and a murder conviction would have engaged the absolute common law forfeiture rule without any discretion to grant relief.
The Forfeiture Act 1982 remains in force and unamended in its material provisions. The principle that forfeiture can sever a joint tenancy, and that courts retain discretion under s.2 to modify the forfeiture rule in cases of manslaughter (but not murder), remains good law. Later cases such as Dunbar v Plant [1998] Ch 412 and Chadwick v Collinson [2014] EWHC 3055 (Ch) have confirmed and developed the approach taken in Re K, but have not displaced it. The article remains relevant for students studying forfeiture, joint tenancy severance, and the interaction between equity and unlawful killing.
