Court denies injunction against Potanin

The recent judgment in the Potanina v Potanin case has drawn attention due to its complexity and implications for ongoing family litigation. The court officially refused to continue injunctions that had previously prevented Russian billionaire Vladimir Potanin from relying on an anti-suit injunction obtained in Russia. This decision highlights a prolonged legal conflict that has persisted for 12 years since the couple's divorce in 2014, leading to a staggering amount spent on legal fees.

Alex Brereton, Partner in the Family department at Hunters Law LLP, shared insights into the ruling. He remarked "This judgment, running at over 21,000 words and centring around (amongst other applications) an “anti-anti suit injunction”, is unlikely to dispel the perception that the law is unnecessarily complex." He further noted that both parties continue to extend their dispute in the English Family Court, illustrating the ongoing nature of their conflict.

The court's decision also revealed that Mr Justice MacDonald found the principle of “comity” to be significant in this case. He determined that there were no sufficient grounds to question the husband’s litigation conduct in Russia. Brereton explained, "the principle of “comity” (that courts mutually recognise and defer to laws and judgments made in other jurisdictions unless there are very good reasons not to) outweighed the wife’s criticisms of the Russian proceedings."

As the case progresses, the implications for the wife could be severe. The High Court has allowed a stay of execution on its order to facilitate the wife's appeal to the Court of Appeal. However, Brereton cautioned that "it would be a brave practitioner to say with any certainty what the outcome of that appeal might be." Should the appeal not be successful, significant financial penalties await the wife in Russia, potentially overshadowing her claim's value in the UK, which is estimated to be around USD $5 billion.