Key Facts
- •Nafisa Hasan (Wife) married Mahmud Ul-Hasan (Husband) in Pakistan in 1981.
- •They separated in 2006, and the Husband obtained a divorce in Pakistan in 2012.
- •The Wife sought financial relief in England and Wales under the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 after the overseas divorce.
- •The Husband died three weeks before the final hearing of the Wife's application.
- •The Wife sought to continue her application against the Husband's estate.
- •The Husband's estate argued that the Wife's rights ended with his death.
- •Both the Husband and Wife died before the appeal was heard, with their respective estates continuing the case.
Legal Principles
There is no general rule that a divorce suit abates upon the death of one party; the question is whether further proceedings can be taken.
Barder v Barder [1988] AC 20
To determine if further proceedings can be taken after a party's death in a divorce suit, consider: (1) the nature of the proceedings, (2) the construction of relevant statutory provisions, and (3) the applicability of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934.
Barder v Barder [1988] AC 20
Matrimonial legislation historically created personal rights and obligations ending with a party's death; Parliament is presumed to know this when enacting legislation.
Various cases including Thomson v Thomson [1896] P 263, Dipple v Dipple [1942] P 65, Hinde v Hinde [1953] 1 WLR 175, Sugden v Sugden [1957] P 120, D'Este v D'Este [1973] Fam 55
Claims for financial relief are now considered a matter of right, not mere hope.
Miller v Miller [2006] UKHL 24
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The 1984 and 1973 Acts create personal rights and obligations only adjudicated between living parties. The court lacks jurisdiction to order financial relief after one party's death in overseas divorce cases. The established legal understanding and the interplay with the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 support this interpretation.