In the case of Ninian vs Findlay in 2019, the Court ruled that Sarah Ninian could indeed inherit her husband’s £1.8 million estate, even though she had planned their visit to Dignitas and had accompanied him on their trip. This meant that the Court had used its discretion and decided that the “Forfeiture Rule” should not apply. The decision came as a bit of a surprise because the Rule had, following a case twenty years earlier, been considered very powerful. Under the Rule, no one can benefit from the estate of any person whose death they have unlawfully assisted.
At the time, the decision was regarded as good news. It meant that people who planned a relative’s visit to Switzerland could assume that any inheritance in the deceased’s Will could indeed be awarded to them. They would still have to rely upon the DPP guidance to avoid prosecution but, under civil law at least, they were likely to be in the clear.
However, there is also the well-known law of unintended consequences. This is now in play – and rather forcefully.
Because the judgement in Ninian vs Findlay had expressed that the circumstance of Sarah Ninian were highly individual, law firms have been reluctant to accept the decision as a precedent. Therefore, particularly where larger estates are being administered by Executors who are themselves Lawyers, the Solicitors are seeking similar protection from the Courts. This, of course, is for their own protection. They need to be sure that they have the authority to distribute the estate in line with the deceased’s Will. Whilst this may seem a sensible precaution it does add greatly to the cost and time of obtaining probate. With our current sclerotic judicial system, delays of over a year are being experienced.
So how can this be avoided ? The only safe option would seem to be that whoever makes the arrangement should not be mentioned in the Will, should not travel to Switzerland and should not be paid anything either. It may be hard to find volunteers for such a task.
