The Law Reform Commission is reviewing a legal principle that prevents a person who has killed another from benefiting financially from the victim’s death.
The so-called ‘Forfeiture Rule’ is based in common law, meaning it is derived from earlier court decisions rather than from any specific legislation or public policy, a situation the commission says “preserves flexibility, but also creates uncertainty”.
The rule can apply to property interests, such as joint tenancies, life insurance, superannuation and pension entitlements, and to various forms of unlawful killing.
In a discussion paper, the Law Reform Commission says it is examining the rule as it applies within Cayman’s legal framework, and assessing “whether the strict common law approach remains appropriate, or whether statutory reform should be introduced to provide clearer and fairer outcomes in cases involving manslaughter, diminished responsibility or coercive control”.
Discretionary approaches to the rule
The Forfeiture Rule was established in 1891, by a decision of the English Court of Appeal in a case known as ‘Cleaver v Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association’. In that case, the court held that a woman who had been convicted of murdering her husband could not claim the proceeds of his insurance policy. In later court cases, the rule was applied to instances of manslaughter, as well as murder.
The Law Reform Commission noted that courts in the UK and Australia have recently taken greater discretionary approaches, particularly in cases of manslaughter involving mental impairment or coercive control, citing, for example, cases where women who killed their partners after prolonged domestic violence were allowed to inherit the victims’ property.
In another instance, the commission cites the 2019 court case of Sarah Ninian, who had helped arranged her husband Alex’s trip to Switzerland. Her husband, who had suffered from progressive supra-nuclear palsy, voluntarily ended his life there with help from assisted suicide company Dignitas. In that case, the English court ultimately granted relief from forfeiture and Ninian was allowed to inherit her husband’s estate.
The commission also looked at a variety of other cases; one involving a husband dying as a result of careless driving by his wife; another involving a failed joint-suicide bid; and another in which a terminally ill husband committed suicide after suffocating his wife who suffered from dementia. In each case, judges had determined that the Forfeiture Rule did not apply, despite unlawful deaths being involved.
Cayman has no specific written rules on the issue of forfeiture, unlike other jurisdictions, such as New Zealand, the UK and some Australian states and territories, which, the commission says, have “enacted legislation to provide clarity and proportionality in the Rule’s application”.
The primary law governing inheritance and succession in the Cayman Islands is the Succession Act (2021 Revision), which contains no specific provisions addressing inheritance in cases where a beneficiary has unlawfully killed the deceased.
Clearer guidance needed
In its discussion paper, the commission stated, “The Rule remains a fundamental principle of public policy, ensuring that no person who unlawfully causes the death of another may benefit from that wrongdoing. However, the strict common law approach in the Cayman Islands risks producing disproportionate and unjust outcomes in cases involving reduced culpability, such as diminished responsibility, domestic or family violence, coercive control or mental illness.
“Accordingly, legislative reform is necessary in the Cayman Islands to provide clearer guidance on the application of the Rule.”
It said the approach by other jurisdictions provides a balanced model for the Cayman Islands to consider, noting that “by allowing judicial discretion in cases of manslaughter, diminished responsibility, and coercive control, courts can ensure that justice is served on a case-by-case basis rather than through an inflexible legal standard”.
It added, “Reform in the Cayman Islands should adopt a discretionary statutory framework to modify the Rule, while codifying the property consequences where the Rule is applied.”
The commission is inviting the public to read the discussion paper and submit feedback by 27 June 2026 to the Director of the Law Reform Commission, 5th Floor Government Administration Building, Portfolio of Legal Affairs, 133 Elgin Avenue, George Town, Grand Cayman, P.O. Box 136, Grand Cayman KY1-9000 by post or hand delivered, or via email to to [email protected].
Click here to read the discussion paper.
Related Videos
