Judgment in the case of Unger and another (in substitution for Hasan) (Appellants) v Ul-Hasan (deceased) and another (Respondents) [2023] UKSC 22 has now been handed down.

Tim Amos KC and Joe Rainer of QEB, along with Andrzej Bojarski of 36 Family appeared for the successful Respondents, instructed by Byron James of Expatriate Law.

The question on appeal was whether, where one of the parties to an application under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (“Part III”) for financial relief has died, further proceedings can or cannot be taken. Or, put another way, whether an as yet undetermined Part III application could continue notwithstanding the death of one of the parties.

The Supreme Court endorsed the Respondents’ arguments that a contextual and textual construction of Part III led to the conclusion that Parliament did not intend for such a claim to survive the death of a party. The Supreme Court noted that to accede to the Appeal would amount to a ‘major reform involving radical change to long-established principles’.

The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the leapfrog appeal directed by Mostyn J (against himself) in Hasan v Ul-Hasan (Deceased) and Al Shaibah [2021] EWHC 1791 (Fam)