Dipple v Dipple: 1942

The court considered the abatement of an application for financial relief in divorce proceedings on the death of one party.
Held: The wife’s claim to secured provision was not a cause of action within the terms of section 1(1). The wife only had the hope that the court would in its discretion order a secured provision. She had no right to it at all until the order was actually made, and hence she had no cause of action at his death. As to s190: ‘Sect. 190 of the Judicature Act, 1925, provides that the court may, if it thinks fit, order the husband to secure to the wife such a sum of money as the court may deem to be reasonable. The wife thus has merely the right to ask the court to exercise discretionary powers in her favour. This seems to me to be an essentially different thing from her having an enforceable claim against her husband.’


Hodson J


[1942] P 64


Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 1(1), Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 190

Cited by:

CitedBarder v Barder; Barder v Caluori HL 1988
Later Event no ground to appeal from consent order
The matrimonial home had been owned jointly by the husband and wife. In divorce proceedings, an order was made by consent that the husband should transfer his interest in the home to the wife within 28 days. Before the order had been executed, the . .
CitedHarb v King Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz and Another CA 9-Nov-2005
The wife sought to continue her claim for ancillary relief despite the death of her husband, the former King of Saudi Arabia.
Held: The court’s jurisdiction over the King had been challenged. However the claimants claim now abated on the death . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.235827