Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Unger & Anor v Ul-Hasan (deceased) & Anor
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant and the Respondent married in The State of Pakistan in 1981 and enjoyed a long marriage during which substantial wealth was accumulated, including a London property purchased in 1998. They separated in 2006 and were divorced in Pakistan on 10 January 2012. On 1 August 2017 the Appellant obtained leave under section 13(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (“the 1984 Act”) to seek financial relief in England and Wales following the overseas divorce, and the substantive application was issued on 11 August 2017.
During case management, disputes arose over the Respondent’s disclosure of assets (he had declared approximately £7 million). The final hearing was fixed for 8 February 2021, but the Respondent died on 18 January 2021. His executor was substituted as party to the proceedings. On 2 July 2021 Judge Stephens dismissed the Appellant’s claim, holding himself bound by Court of Appeal authority to the effect that such claims do not survive the death of a party. He certified a “leap-frog” appeal to the Supreme Court. Permission was granted on 12 April 2022. The Appellant died on 5 May 2022 and her personal representatives were substituted. Thus, the appeal was pursued between the estates of the former spouses.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, on the true construction of the 1984 Act read with the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (“the 1973 Act”), the power of a court to order post-divorce financial relief can be exercised only as between living former spouses.
- If the answer to Issue 1 is “no”, whether an unadjudicated claim under Part III of the 1984 Act constitutes a “cause of action” that survives against the estate of a deceased spouse within section 1(1) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The statutory language does not expressly limit claims to living parties; therefore, section 1(1) of the 1934 Act should operate to allow survival of the cause of action.
- Modern family-law principles (e.g., sharing and compensation) confer enforceable rights, not mere hopes, and should not abate on death.
- The first-instance judge’s reliance on older authorities such as Sugden v Sugden is outdated and inconsistent with present-day concepts of entitlement.
Respondent's Arguments
- Long-established authority treats financial-relief rights as personal to the spouses and incapable of enforcement against an estate.
- Textual indicators in the 1984 Act (e.g., references to “either party to the marriage”) presuppose living parties; Parliament would have used different words if estate claims were intended.
- Allowing survival would undermine and duplicate the distinct regime contained in the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, which already governs provision from estates.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|
| Sugden v Sugden [1957] P 120 | Maintenance obligations deemed personal and ending on death | Treated as binding Court of Appeal authority but ultimately distinguished as context-specific; confirmed personal nature of relief |
| Barder v Barder [1988] AC 20 | Framework for determining whether proceedings may continue after death; establishes “Barder events” test | Adopted as the correct three-stage analytical approach to the central question |
| Thomson v Thomson [1896] P 263 | Variation of settlements possible only for living beneficiaries | Cited as early authority supporting the “personal rights end on death” doctrine |
| Dipple v Dipple [1942] P 65 | Secured maintenance claim not a surviving cause of action | Relied on to show historic judicial attitude to survival of matrimonial claims |
| Hinde v Hinde [1953] 1 WLR 175 | Maintenance payments limited to period of joint lives | Illustrated statutory wording restricting obligations to living spouses |
| D'Este v D'Este [1973] Fam 55 | Applications to vary settlements limited to joint lives | Supported orthodox view that matrimonial legislation confers personal rights only |
| Harb v King Fahd [2005] EWCA Civ 1324; [2006] 1 WLR 578 | Section 27 claims abate on death; interpretation guided by historic context | Provided contemporary affirmation of the orthodox rule |
| Miller v Miller [2006] 2 AC 618 | Modern principles of sharing and entitlement | Quoted to demonstrate shift from “hope” to “right”, but court held this did not alter statutory construction |
| Hill v Haines [2008] Ch 412 | Spouse’s claim is claim to quantify entitlement | Cited to show evolution in thinking about matrimonial rights |
| Richardson v Richardson [2011] EWCA Civ 79 | Post-order death does not reopen sharing award | Illustrated inequity but not determinative of statutory interpretation |
| White v White [2001] 1 AC 596 | Fairness and equality in division of assets | Contextual background to modern discretionary principles |
| Wyatt v Vince [2015] UKSC 14 | No general limitation period for 1973 Act claims | Used in discussion of differing time limits between regimes |
| Smith v Smith [1992] Fam 69 | Barder event jurisprudence applied after wife’s death | Described as narrow exception not justifying wholesale reform |
| Reid v Reid [2004] 1 FLR 736 | Barder conditions applied where party died post-order | Cited as further illustration of limited exception |
| WA v Estate of HA [2015] EWHC 2233 | Re-assessment of award following death within months | Reinforced limited survival in Barder-type appeals |
| Jacobs v LCC [1950] AC 361 | When multiple reasons form ratio decidendi | Used to show Sugden has dual binding ratios |
| London Jewellers v Attenborough [1934] 2 KB 206 | Multiple grounds can each be binding precedent | Supported analysis of dual ratio concept |
| Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232 | Definition of “cause of action” | Cited in discussion of 1934 Act terminology |
| Harris v Lewisham & Guy’s MHT [2000] ICR 707 | Section 1(1) 1934 Act applies unless expressly excluded | Illustrated automatic survival principle in other statutory contexts |
| Project for Registration of Children as British Citizens [2022] UKSC 3 | Contextual statutory interpretation | Guided court’s method of reading 1984 and 1973 Acts |
| R (N) v Lewisham LBC [2014] UKSC 62 | Parliament presumed to legislate with knowledge of case-law | Supported inference that Parliament accepted orthodox rule |
| R (Steinfeld) v Secretary of State [2018] UKSC 32 | Evolution of relationship recognition | Background for discussion on modern family law but not decisive |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Judge Stephens, delivering the leading judgment, adopted the three-stage framework from Barder:
- Identify the nature of the further proceedings sought (continuation of a Part III financial-relief claim).
- Ascertain, on true construction of the relevant statutes (the 1984 Act and the 1973 Act), whether proceedings can continue after the death of a party.
- If—and only if—the statutes permit continuation, consider whether section 1(1) of the 1934 Act applies.
The judge found the first-instance court had erred by leaping directly to stage 3 without deciding stage 2. Undertaking a detailed textual and contextual interpretation, the Supreme Court concluded:
- The phrases “either party to the marriage” and “a party to the marriage” historically—and consistently in case-law—refer to living individuals; Parliament used identical terminology in the 1984 Act, implying continuity of meaning.
- Section 16 of the 1984 Act obliges the court to examine connections the parties “have” with various jurisdictions, language incompatible with one or both parties being deceased.
- Significant interplay with the 1975 Act demonstrates legislative intention to confine estate claims to the narrower inheritance-provision regime; amendments made by section 25 of the 1984 Act would be redundant if Part III claims survived death.
- Historic authorities from Thomson onward establish an “orthodox” understanding that matrimonial financial claims lapse on death; Parliament re-enacted analogous language against that backdrop, indicating acceptance of the rule.
- Limited exceptions under the “Barder event” doctrine do not justify recasting the statutory scheme; they operate only where an order has been made or leave to appeal is granted promptly after an unforeseen supervening event.
Because the statutory provisions create rights and obligations enforceable only between living former spouses, the 1934 Act question was rendered moot.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED.
The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction to grant financial relief under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, read with the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, exists only as between living parties to a former marriage. Consequently, once either spouse dies, an unadjudicated claim under Part III cannot be pursued against the deceased’s estate, and it is unnecessary to consider survival under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934.
Practical implications are confined to the parties: the Appellant’s estate receives no award, and the Respondent’s estate retains its assets. The decision entrenches the existing separation between matrimonial-finance jurisdiction and the inheritance-provision regime; any broader reform must be effected by Parliament, not by judicial reinterpretation.
Click here to read the full judgment