• news-banner

    Expert Insights

Divorce can feel like a death, but what happens if the person you are divorcing actually passes away?

It is often said that going through a divorce is similar to suffering a bereavement. However, what happens if the person you are divorcing actually dies midway through that process?

The case of Hasan v Ul Hasan (Deceased) Anor [2021] EWHC 1791 (Fam) involved a couple from Pakistan. After their separation in 2006, the Husband obtained a divorce in Pakistan in 2012. In the summer of 2017, the Wife brought a claim in England under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (the legislation that permits the Court in certain circumstances to make financial awards following an overseas divorce). The Wife claimed that significant wealth had been accumulated during the course of the marriage and over the following three and a half years litigation took place in the English Courts, focusing primarily on the Husband’s financial disclosure.

However, on 18 January 2021, the Husband (who was 81) died. The Wife (aged 74) argued that she should still be able to pursue her unadjudicated Part III claim notwithstanding the death of her ex-husband.

This kind of financial claim cannot be initiated if the respondent is already dead and the authorities are arguably quite clear that existing but unadjudicated claims of this nature cannot continue after the death of the respondent either. Nonetheless, the Wife argued that as her claim was already in motion it should be permitted to continue.

The case was heard in the Family Division of the High Court in June 2021 before Mostyn J. He reviewed the law and found that he was bound by the Court of Appeal authority in Sugden v Sugden [1957] P 120 and that this financial claim (as with other financial claims brought after divorce) did not survive the death of the respondent.

However, having reached this conclusion at as early as paragraph 23 of his judgment, Mostyn J then spent the remaining 49 paragraphs of his judgment explaining in great detail why he thought the case of Sugden is wrong. He pointed to several reasons why he thought this was the case:

  1. He thought that financial relief following divorce constitutes a “cause of action” that endures after the death of the respondent, as is the case with most civil claims;
  2. He thought that such claims were less speculative than many other claims that survive the death of the respondent (for example, a personal injury claim) and so it follows that a financial claim following divorce should also survive the respondent’s death; and
  3. In various cases involving the Court’s ‘set aside’ jurisdiction, the Court has exercised its statutory discretion after the death of the respondent and so it follows that the substantive claim can also be adjudicated following the respondent’s death

The judge then, most unusually, said that if either party wished to appeal his decision that he would grant permission for a ‘leapfrog’ application to be brought straight to the Supreme Court (on the basis that the Court of Appeal would also be bound by its earlier decision in Sugden).

It remains to be seen whether the Wife will appeal this decision, although given the very strong words of encouragement from the judge and the detailed case he set out in his judgment, it seems likely that she will do so. If so, the matter will come before the Supreme Court in due course. If the Supreme Court agrees with Mostyn J, that decision could have wide ranging ramifications. It would permit a spouse to continue a financial claim against their ex-spouse’s estate and could in theory give rise to an entirely new sub-set of divorce litigation.

Our thinking

  • UK Real Estate Opportunities for Asia Capital

    Simon Green

    Events

  • UK Immigration Reform – deeper restrictions on the horizon

    Paul McCarthy

    Quick Reads

  • Mastering Claims Against Estates: A Guide to Debt Enforcement in Switzerland

    Remo Wagner

    Quick Reads

  • Non-Muslim Divorce in the UAE: Understanding UAE Divorce Law

    Miranda Fisher

    Insights

  • The new UK-India Free Trade Agreement – a significant development for both nations

    Kim Lalli

    Quick Reads

  • Liam Payne’s £24.3m Intestate Estate: A Stark Reminder for High-Net-Worth Individuals

    Natalie Butler

    Quick Reads

  • Spear's quotes Miranda Fisher on the Standish v Standish Supreme Court hearing

    Miranda Fisher

    In the Press

  • Harriet Betteridge, Lauren Clarke, Gregoire Uldry and Alexia Egger Castillo write for the Law Society Gazette on assisted dying

    Harriet Betteridge

    In the Press

  • So the UK tax rules have changed: what does this mean for US people?

    Sangna Chauhan

    Insights

  • Singapore High Court Clarifies Status of Interim Measures in Arbitration

    Peter Brabant

    Quick Reads

  • The Daily Telegraph quotes Kelvin Tanner on wealthy Americans relocating to the UK

    Kelvin Tanner

    In the Press

  • Foundations Across Borders: A Global Perspective

    Grégoire Uldry

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys' Gen Z Survey referenced in Forbes article on how Gen Z is reshaping the world of work

    In the Press

  • Insolvency Administration Orders – Applications by Personal Representatives

    Daniel Moore

    Insights

  • Token2049 week - what's on the horizon?

    Racheal Muldoon

    Quick Reads

  • My “15 Minutes of fame”, Eddie Redmayne and The Theory of Everything...

    Charlotte Posnansky

    Quick Reads

  • Grégoire Uldry and Alexia Egger Castillo write for Wealth Briefing on relocation to Switzerland and trusts

    Grégoire Uldry

    In the Press

  • From Double Helix to the Courtroom – A Look Down The Microscope into DNA Testing in Family Law

    James Elliott-Hughes

    Insights

  • The path to paradise or the road to ruin? The Pathfinder pilot in Children Act cases

    Ben Haynes

    Quick Reads

  • Private wealth shuffle: Uncovering the latest relocation trends of fortunes

    Yacine Diallo

    Insights

Back to top