• Sectors we work in banner(2)

    Quick Reads

Can a financial claim in divorce proceed after the death of either party?

The Supreme Court on 28 June concluded that it could not. 

This is on the basis that a financial claim on divorce is a personal claim which does not survive the death of either of the parties. The parties in the case in question were divorced in Pakistan, but the former wife was able to make a claim in England following a divorce abroad. However, before an order was made, the former husband died. The former wife applied for permission to pursue her claim after his death. Her case was that they accumulated significant wealth during the marriage. 

Her application was refused in July 2021. The judge acknowledged that the law following a case in 1957 was that a financial claim made in divorce proceedings cannot proceed after death. However, he believed that the decision in the 1957 case was wrong and granted permission to the former wife to go to the Supreme Court. 

In certain circumstances, death after a financial order has been made can lead to the order being set aside/appealed. These may be cases where the payee has had a claim based on needs, and has died shortly after the order has been made. Clearly a deceased payee has no needs. In those cases, the court can make a different order and so is in that sense making a financial order after death. There is thus a different treatment between cases in which death occurred just before trial and those in which death occurred shortly after. 

However, the cases affected would be limited to those in which the divorce had already been finalised by a decree absolute. Once one of the parties has died, it is not possible to proceed with the divorce itself and the court is unable to make an order until there is a conditional order on divorce (decree nisi). A final order of divorce (the decree absolute) has to have been made before an order is enforceable. In most cases, the decree absolute is not applied for until after the financial order has been made. 

Where the payer dies domiciled in England/Wales, the surviving spouse, or former spouse, can make a claim against the estate after death under the Inheritance Act 1975. Thus in practice the difficulty for claimants addressed by this case is where the divorce has been finalised, the payer dies and is not domiciled in this country. Under the Inheritance Act, a claim cannot proceed if the claimant has died. 

This decision means that by the circumstance of the husband dying before the hearing, rather than shortly after it, the wife has been prevented from continuing with her claim and as she had died too, she would not be able to leave her entitlement as a result of the marriage as she wished. 

Instead, the assets she would have been likely to share with her former husband will instead presumably be kept by his widow. 

As the delay in the final hearing appears to be as a result of issues with the former husband’s disclosure, this seems unfair, but the Court decided that as it was intended by Parliament that financial claims would end on death, to change this would require statutory reform. Reform would also need to address other legislation, such as the Inheritance Act. 

Our thinking

  • Was it Panglossian or Painful? A year after the US and UK elections

    Jeffrey Lee

    Events

  • International Tax Compliance (Amendment) Regulations 2025: What UK trustees need to know

    Elinor Boote

    Quick Reads

  • Helliwell v Entwistle – the (actual) conclusion!

    Sarah Jane Boon

    Quick Reads

  • Candy Kittens takes a bite as Unilever slims down

    Iwan Thomas

    Quick Reads

  • Autumn Budget 2025 – Inheritance Tax (IHT) and charitable gifts

    Richard Honey

    Insights

  • Pro bono costs orders in children proceedings

    Sarah Higgins

    Quick Reads

  • UAE CCL Reforms: Introducing Multi-Class Shares, Drag / Tag Rights, Deadlock Solutions and Governance Continuity

    Mo Nawash

    Quick Reads

  • IHT and CGT key takeaways after the Autumn Budget

    Julia Cox

    Quick Reads

  • Bitter taxation pills to swallow, arguably all the more indigestible for those separating or divorcing

    Charlotte Posnansky

    Quick Reads

  • The “former matrimonial mansion” – how the new “mansion tax” could reshape divorce

    Miranda Fisher

    Quick Reads

  • Autumn Budget: impact on the prime and super prime property market

    Hannah Catt

    Quick Reads

  • Charles Russell Speechlys' family team in the Court of Appeal on the meaning of "father"

    Sarah Higgins

    Quick Reads

  • What is a Family Investment Company (FIC)?

    Mary Perham

    Quick Reads

  • Autumn Budget 2025: Personal tax takeaways

    Tanwen Evans-Balch

    Quick Reads

  • BBC Points West interviews Julia Cox on the impact of the UK Autumn Budget on high-net-worth individuals

    Julia Cox

    In the Press

  • Spear’s quotes William Marriott and Hannah Catt on the implications of a ‘mansion tax’ for properties exceeding £2 million announced in the UK Autumn Budget

    William Marriott

    In the Press

  • Why the UK Still Deserves a Seat at the Table for Family Offices and Investment Fund Structures

    Vadim Romanoff

    Insights

  • The Daily Express, eprivateclient and Today’s Family Lawyer quote Miranda Fisher on what the UK Autumn Budget means for separating couples

    Miranda Fisher

    In the Press

  • eprivateclient quotes Julia Cox on speculation around potential inheritance tax changes ahead of the UK Autumn Budget

    Julia Cox

    In the Press

  • Vadim Romanoff and Matthew Griffin write for EPrivateClient on the UK's attractiveness for Family Offices and Investment Funds ahead of the 2025 Budget

    Vadim Romanoff

    In the Press

Back to top