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.

In 2017, Ms Wang made an application for further leave to remain having previously been granted entry clearance as a Tier 1 (Investor) Migrant and leave to remain for a limited period. In order to fulfil the applicable conditions under the Immigration Rules, it was necessary for her to have borrowed £1 million from a UK financially regulated institution so as to have that sum under her control; and to have invested at least £750,000 of such sum in UK Government bonds or in share capital or loan capital in a qualifying active and trading UK registered company. Ms Wang's claim was based on her participation in a scheme sold to her and over 100 other applicants for investor migrant visas, whereby £1 million was borrowed from Maxwell Asset Management Limited and invested in Eclectic Capital Limited by way of a convertible loan. The Secretary of State refused Ms Wang's application on the twin grounds that the loan from Maxwell Asset Management did not result in her having the proceeds under her control, and that the investment in Eclectic Capital Limited was not a qualifying investment. The Upper Tribunal's decision dismissing Ms Wang's application for judicial review was set aside by the Court of Appeal. The Secretary of State now appeals to the Supreme Court.