Mack v Lockwood & Ors [2009] EWHC 1524 (Ch) (19 June 2009)

Mack v Lockwood & Ors [2009] EWHC 1524 (Ch) (19 June 2009)

The court found that although Kenneth Mack suffered from frontal lobe impairment, he intended to kill his wife and his mental impairment did not sufficiently reduce his culpability to justify modifying the forfeiture rule. The brutality of the killing, absence of provocation or violence from the deceased, and lack of financial dependency meant that justice did not require relief from forfeiture.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1524 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Kenneth Alexander Mack; First Defendant (executor and Trustee of the Will of Loraine Mack, Deceased): Stephen Lockwood; Second Defendant: David Kenneth Mack; Third Defendant: Simon Alexander Mack
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.2 Forfeiture Act 1982 / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Forfeiture Rule, Relief From Forfeiture, Manslaughter, Mental Impairment, Public Policy in Succession
Probate Trusts and Estates Criminal Law Forfeiture Rule Relief From Forfeiture Manslaughter Mental Impairment Public Policy in Succession

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenneth Alexander Mack

Claimant

Stephen Lockwood

First Defendant (executor and Trustee of the Will of Loraine Mack, Deceased)

David Kenneth Mack

Second Defendant

Simon Alexander Mack

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under S.2 Forfeiture Act 1982 / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the forfeiture rule should be modified under s.2 of the Forfeiture Act 1982 to allow a person convicted of manslaughter of the deceased to benefit from the estate
  2. 2 Degree of culpability required to justify application or modification of the forfeiture rule
  3. 3 Impact of mental impairment on culpability

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although Kenneth Mack suffered from frontal lobe impairment, he intended to kill his wife and his mental impairment did not sufficiently reduce his culpability to justify modifying the forfeiture rule. The brutality of the killing, absence of provocation or violence from the deceased, and lack of financial dependency meant that justice did not require relief from forfeiture.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Kenneth Mack is not entitled to relief from forfeiture and cannot inherit under the will of Lorraine Mack.