The Supreme Court ruled that financial provision claim proceedings under the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 cannot proceed if a party dies.
Facts:
Ms. Hasan and Mr. Ul–Hasan married in Pakistan in 1981 before separating in 2006. Mr. Ul–Hasan obtained a divorce in Pakistan in 2012. Ms. Hasan’s case was that, during the parties’ marriage, they accumulated significant wealth. In August 2017, Ms. Hasan obtained leave to bring proceedings for financial provision under the 1984 Act. In January 2021, before Ms. Hasan’s claim could be adjudicated, Mr. Ul–Hasan died. Ms Hasan sought permission to pursue her claim for financial provision against Mr. Ul–Hasan’s estate which was refused at first instance.
Decision:
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal after holding that her unadjudicated claim under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 did not survive the death of her husband.
According to Lord Stephens, giving the lead judgment, under the true construction of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, read along with the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the rights to apply for financial relief are personal rights and obligations that can only be adjudicated between living parties. To arrive at this conclusion, the judge looked at the legal context and judicial decision prior to those acts being passed. The Court did not see any reason to depart from the clear legal understanding that rights against one’s spouse are personal and cannot survive their death. Indeed, if the statutes were to depart from the settled understanding, then there would be clear words to that effect. Additionally, the Court argued that such a claim would involve major reform that would significantly change long-established principles, raising policy questions concerning succession and insolvency laws.
The Supreme Court disagreed with Mostyn J.’s criticism of Sugden v Sugden [1957], while acknowledging that Mostyn J.’s judgement in the High Court was a ‘magisterial and potentially seminal’.
Implications:
This decision has been criticised as it requires the former spouse to initiate new proceedings against the estate which will increase the workload for family and civil courts alike. However, for a claim against the deceased’s estate to be successful, the former spouse must be domiciled in England and Wales when he or she died, otherwise the claim will be rendered invalid under the Inheritance Act 1975. Knowing how difficult it is to prove – under English law – that a person acquired his or her domicile in England and Wales, this ruling might have an adverse effect on parties whose former spouse is domiciled abroad or else never legally changed their domicile to England and Wales. Finally, this ruling was criticised as being disappointing and manifestly unjust, as it creates a differentiation between claimants; indeed, the remaining party is left with no access to funds that they would otherwise have were the deceased to still be alive.
While the Supreme Court recognised the problem with the current law and how unfair it could be for the remaining spouse, it is the prerogative of Parliament to resolve the issue and not the Supreme Court. This case might, therefore, force the UK Parliament to consider reforms.