Golden ruleReading in wordsChancery Division

Re Sigsworth

[1935] Chancery 8919351 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Son murdered his mother. Mother died intestate. Administration of Estates Act 1925: estate devolves to "issue" (i.e., children)
Issue
Whether a murderer can inherit from the estate of the person he has murdered under intestacy rules.
Held
Literal reading permits a murderer to profit from his crime (repugnant to justice)
Principle
Golden Rule applied to read in words not present in the statute, preventing a murderer from inheriting on intestacy from the person he killed.
Cite this

Facts

  • Son murdered his mother
  • Mother died intestate
  • Administration of Estates Act 1925: estate devolves to "issue" (i.e., children)
  • No express statutory bar on a murderer inheriting

Issue

  1. Whether a murderer can inherit from the estate of the person he has murdered under intestacy rules.

Held

  • Literal reading permits a murderer to profit from his crime (repugnant to justice)
  • Golden Rule applied: words read into the statute excluding a person who has killed the deceased
  • Son barred from inheriting

Ratio decidendi

Where the literal application of clear statutory words would produce a result repugnant to principles of public policy and justice, the court may read in words to prevent that repugnant result.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Golden Rule at its broadest: reading in words not present in the statute
  • Contrast with R v. Allen (narrowing) and Adler v. George (extending)
  • Key line: "In Re Sigsworth (1935), the court applied the Golden Rule to read in a qualification that a murderer cannot inherit from the victim, since a literal reading would allow a person to profit from his own crime."

Cite this

Citation

Re Sigsworth [1935] Chancery 89

Reported: [1935] Ch 89; standard textbook authority. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.