Husband of Heiress who Drowned in Denmark Cottage Pool Blocked from Inheriting £4 Million Fortune

Mr McPherson had claimed to be asleep when Paula died and said that her 13 injuries, including grazes and bruises, must have been caused by his attempt to drag her body from the pool.

Paula’s family, however, insisted that she hated swimming and didn’t even intend to buy a swimming costume for the trip that her husband had solely planned.

They claim that Paula had always preferred city breaks and would never have chosen the remote cottage as a holiday destination.

Before unlawfully killing Paula, McPherson both dishonestly forged trust documents to secure control over money payable on Paula’s death and forged a signature of a supposed witness of her Will.

Hours after his wife’s death, McPherson transferred more than £20,000 from their joint account to satisfy his debts and ate a steak dinner.

Mr Richard Justice Smith stated that the “critical question” was how Paula ended up in the water, which was only 4 feet deep, unable to save herself.

He ruled that she must have been unconscious and that the distribution of her neck injuries suggested compression from an arm lock by her husband.

Despite being acquitted of murder in a criminal trial in 2021 due to insufficient evidence, McPherson faced civil proceedings by Paula’s family, who sought to block him from inheriting her Fortune under the forfeiture rule.

The forfeiture rule prevents a person from profiting from the estate of someone they have unlawfully killed. Whilst McPherson was cleared in the criminal court due to lack of evidence, the civil court applies a lower burden of proof.

Mr Justice Smith found “without hesitation” that – on the balance of probabilities - McPherson had unlawfully caused Paula’s death by compressing her neck in an armlock, rendering her unconscious and allowing her to drown.

He found that:

“It is no exaggeration to say that lies and dishonesty pervade every aspect of [McPherson’s] life. [McPherson] lies to anyone if it might serve his interests.” He continued that he could not begin to comprehend the “pain and heartache that [Paula’s family] have experienced as a result of Paula’s death.”

In relation to the Will upon which McPherson had forged a witness’ signature, Mr Smith found that Will to be invalid due to want of knowledge and approval.

He found that Paula did not know or approve the contents of her purported Will, which is one of the requirements for a Will to be validly executed.

As a result of the High Court decision, McPherson – who Mr Smith found was “motivated by money” - has forfeited any entitlement to Paula’s assets, including the +£3.9 million of insurance policies deceptively incepted by him.

The case appears to be the first forfeiture claim following an acquittal before the criminal courts and reinforces the principle that civil cases can sometimes succeed where criminal prosecutions fail, particularly in cases involving serious allegations such as unlawful killing.

The case is a huge breakthrough in the family’s seven-year fight for justice; however, they have publicly stated that they “will not rest” until McPherson is behind bars.

Paula’s family was represented at trial by Lesley Anderson KC of Kings Chambers, Tom Gosling, and Arianna Barnes of 23 Essex Street.

The family’s legal representatives have confirmed that they will seek to have the criminal investigations reopened based on the findings from the civil proceedings.