Court of Appeal rules on divorce

In one of the most high-profile divorce cases of recent years, the Court of Appeal has ruled in Potanina v Potanin that the wife of a Russian billionaire, with an estimated fortune of £20 billion, can pursue a financial claim in England despite already receiving around £200 million in Russia. 

James Maguire, founder and managing director at Maguire Family Law, has provided expert insight into the case and its wider implications by commenting: "Crucially, the Court of Appeal felt there was a missing piece with the Russian law as it cannot take into account an asset which is legally owned by a third party but where one of the spouses still retains a beneficial interest in it. Even though the wife was awarded £200 million, she enjoyed a lavish lifestyle, and her financial needs would not be met by the Russian award.”

For now, London retains its crown and no doubt in the future the very wealthy will still attempt to choose England to divorce, if it suits their case financially, or have another punt here if things go wrong overseas. There is an argument to say that the English courts shouldn't interfere in a foreign court’s decision if the correct laws and procedures are applied; just because England might award more does not necessarily mean the other jurisdiction is wrong. There is also a wider issue in terms of respecting the laws of other nations.

However, in this case, the financial outcomes between the parties were quite stark, with the husband receiving 99% of the assets and the wife 1%. It is perhaps no surprise that she felt this was unfair after a 30-year marriage and in England, a judge can look behind ownership of assets to see who really ‘owns’ it, with a view to considering all the circumstances of the case. I know too from other international divorce cases, a foreign party will set up home here with a view to securing English jurisdiction, which we call ‘forum shopping’.

For now, Ms Potanina has been allowed to pass ‘go’ and make her financial claim. The case has been passed back to the High Court to decide her financial settlement and it remains to be seen what she will actually receive