Unger and another (in substitution for Hasan) (Appellants) v Ul-Hasan (deceased) and another (Respondents)
Case ID: 2021/0159
Case summary
Issue
Whether an unadjudicated claim for financial provision under the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (the “1984 Act”) survives the death of the respondent and can be continued against their estate.
Facts
Ms Hasan and Mr Ul–Hasan married in Pakistan in 1981. They separated in 2006. Mr Ul–Hasan obtained a divorce in Pakistan in 2012. Ms Hasan’s case is 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.
On 2 July 2021, Mostyn J refused Ms Hasan’s application for permission to pursue her claim. Section 1(1) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 (the “1934 Act”) provides, subject to certain exceptions, that all causes of action subsisting against a person shall survive their death and may be pursued against their estate. The judge considered that he was bound by Court of Appeal authority to the effect that a claim for financial provision under the 1984 Act was not a cause of action for the purposes of Section 1 of the 1934 Act. Accordingly, Ms Hasan could not pursue her claim against Mr Ul-Hasan’s estate. However, Mostyn J also thought that – although he was bound by it – the Court of Appeal authority was wrongly decided. He accordingly granted Ms Hasan a certificate pursuant to Section 12(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1969 (the “1969 Act”) granting permission for Ms Hasan to make a ‘leapfrog’ appeal directly to the Supreme Court. Since permission to appeal was granted, Ms Hasan died and her appeal is continued by personal representatives of her estate.
Judgment appealed
Parties
Appellant(s)
Adeela Unger and Richard Sebastian Francis Unger (in substitution for Nafisa Hasan)
Respondent(s)
1) Mahmud Ul-Hasan (deceased), 2) Lamya Al Shaibah
Appeal
Justices
Lord Hodge, Lord Hamblen, Lord Leggatt, Lord Burrows, Lord Stephens
Hearing start date
20 October 2022
Hearing finish date
20 October 2022
| Watch hearing | ||
|---|---|---|
| 20 Oct 2022 | Morning session | Afternoon session |
Judgment details
Judgment date
28 June 2023
Neutral citation
[2023] UKSC 22
- Judgment (PDF)
- Press summary (HTML version)
- Judgment on The National Archives (HTML version)
- Judgment on BAILII (HTML version)
Please note: this judgment was reuploaded on 04/07/2023 to complete the name of a case in para 36, and to remove a duplication of the word ‘that’ in para 91.
| Watch Judgment summary | |
|---|---|
| 28 June 2023 | Judgment summary |