Court of Appeal judgment on financial remedy appeal after former husband’s death

The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in a former wife's appeal over a financial remedy order, in a case where her former husband died while his own appeal was pending. It affects former spouses and families in similar proceedings.

The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) handed down judgment in Sonal Kanabar v Dipak Maganal Kanabar (Deceased) & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 582 on 15 May 2026. Lord Justice Baker gave the judgment, sitting with Lord Justice Lewison and Lady Justice Yip. The appeal was heard on 23 April 2026.

Background

The husband (H) and his first wife (A) married in 1999 and had two daughters, both now adults. They separated between 2006 and 2008. Decree absolute was granted in November 2010. H married B in 2012, and they had a daughter, now aged 12.

In September 2021, more than ten years after the divorce, H applied for financial relief in the divorce proceedings. The assets in issue were three properties on the same road. Number 468 was the former matrimonial home, bought in 2001 in the joint names of H and A. Number 472 was bought in 1998, before the marriage, in the joint names of H and his father. H's case was that it was subject to a life interest settlement made on 17 March 2005, which purported to transfer the beneficial interest to his two brothers. Number 470 was bought in H's sole name in 2021, and H said his father had provided the purchase money and was entitled to the whole beneficial interest.

District Judge Birk refused H's father permission to intervene, because she had no evidence from him about his claim. After a final hearing in November 2023, her order provided, among other things, for number 470 to be sold with the net proceeds paid to A.

The appeal below

HH Judge Rogers, sitting in retirement, allowed an appeal against that order. He held that what followed the refusal of the father's application was wrong in law and a serious procedural irregularity. He also held that it was a material misdirection to treat the source of the assets as irrelevant in a needs case without at least a basic analysis. He set the order aside but did not substitute his own, as he could not resolve the beneficial ownership issues. H had died in the meantime. The judge noted that, as explained by the Supreme Court in Unger, the consequences of the death might mean A's claim could no longer be pursued.

The question in the Court of Appeal

Lord Justice Baker described the central issues as:

• the powers of an appeal court where the appellant has died after being granted permission to appeal a financial remedies order, and
• the course to take where the deceased died intestate and no one is willing to apply for letters of administration.

The court set out the consequences of the outcome for A. Under section 14 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, a former spouse is treated as if the final divorce order had not been made only where less than 12 months passed between that order and the death. H and A were divorced over thirteen years before H's death. It was submitted for A that a claim under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 might entitle her to no more than her half share of the equity in number 468. The court said it was in no position to express a clear view on the consequences for A.

A appealed against the judge's order, and Lord Justice Cobb granted permission on 12 November 2025. B was joined as a respondent. B had applied for letters of administration for H's estate, but they had not been granted by the time of the hearing. A's first ground of appeal was that the judge should have struck out the appeal because H had died and none of those who would benefit from its success were willing to administer his estate.

Sources

• Sonal Kanabar v Dipak Maganal Kanabar (Deceased) & Anor, [2026] EWCA Civ 582, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 15 May 2026