UK Supreme Court Rules Financial Claims Under Matrimonial Act Cannot Proceed Post-Party Death

UK Supreme Court Rules on Posthumous Financial Provision Claims in Divorce

In a landmark decision, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) has determined that financial provision claim proceedings under the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 cannot continue once one of the involved parties passes away. The ruling, delivered in the case of Unger and another (in substitution for Hasan) (Appellants) v Ul-Hasan (deceased) and another (Respondents) [2023] UKSC 22, unanimously dismissed an appeal for financial relief following the divorce and subsequent deaths of both parties involved.

The case revolved around Ms Hasan and Mr Ul–Hasan, who married in Pakistan in 1981 and separated in 2006. Following a divorce obtained by Mr Ul–Hasan in Pakistan in 2012, Ms Hasan sought financial provision in the UK under the 1984 Act, claiming the couple had accumulated significant wealth during their marriage. However, before her claim could be adjudicated, Mr Ul–Hasan died in January 2021, prompting Ms Hasan to seek permission to pursue her claim against his estate.

Permission was initially refused by Mostyn J in July 2021, citing the precedent set by the Court of Appeal in Sugden v Sugden [1957] P 120, which determined that a claim for financial provision under the 1984 Act did not constitute a cause of action for the purposes of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934. Despite disagreeing with the Court of Appeal’s decision, Mostyn J felt bound by it but granted Ms Hasan permission for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court faced two issues: whether rights under the 1984 Act were personal and could only be adjudicated between living parties, and whether a claim for financial relief under the 1984 Act survives against the estate of a deceased spouse. The Court found that the statutory provisions indeed create personal rights and obligations, adjudicable only between living parties, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Industry Reaction

Deborah Jeff, Head of Family Law at Simkins, expressed disappointment with the judgment, highlighting the inefficiency and increased costs of having to commence fresh proceedings against an estate, especially when the family and civil courts are already overburdened.

Flora Harragin, Partner at Farrer & Co, pointed out the significant implications for surviving parties, especially those whose former spouses were domiciled abroad, as they now might have to navigate the more limiting route of the Inheritance Act 1975.

Rebecca Christie, a family law senior associate, emphasized the Supreme Court’s acknowledgment that a major legal reform would be necessary to allow posthumous proceedings in matrimonial claims. She noted the Court’s recognition of Mostyn J’s High Court judgment as potentially seminal, suggesting a need for the Law Commission to address this issue.

This ruling marks a significant moment in family law, underlining the complexities of matrimonial financial provision and the need for legislative reform to address the evolving nature of family relationships and property rights upon divorce.