The Court of Appeal has heard the substantive appeal of Natalia Potanina, former wife of Russian oligarch Vladimir Potanin, in her claim for financial relief following a foreign divorce.
Potanina v Potanin ([2024] UKSC 3) is a long running divorce case involving a Russian couple whose divorce has been working its way through the legal system in England and Wales for some years.
The parties met and began their relationship in high school in Russia before marrying in 1983. During the marriage and following the fall of the Soviet Union, Mr Potanin amassed a large fortune which is now estimated to amount to $20 billion. Almost all of the assets were held through companies and other business entities where Mr Potanin was not registered as the legal owner but was the beneficial owner. When the parties divorced in Russia in 2014 the Russian court did not consider these assets when dividing the family’s wealth and as a result Mrs Potanina received less than 1% of the wealth which had been built up during their long marriage from which they now have three adult children.
In 2019, Mrs Potanina applied for permission to apply for more money pursuant to Part III Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. The judge at first instance initially granted the permission at a “without notice” hearing. This was in accordance with the standard practice for Part III at the time which required such applications to be made without the other party being present. Mr Potanin then applied to “set aside” the permission and at a subsequent hearing this application was granted. Mrs Potanina then appealed that decision and the Court of Appeal agreed with her that the judge had been wrong to “set aside” the grant of permission. Mr Potanin then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court allowed Mr Potanin’s appeal on the very limited basis that although Mrs Potanina had complied with all procedural rules it was in fact wrong in principle for an application under Part III to be made without notice.
Mr Potanin also argued that the Supreme Court should dismiss Mrs Potanina’s case in its entirety. In this he failed. The Supreme Court took the unusual step of remitting the case back to the Court of Appeal after delivering judgment on the purely procedural point with the case set to be heard on 22 – 23 July.
Acting for Mrs Potanina, Frances Hughes, partner at Hughes Fowler Carruthers said
“We are pleased that the procedural issues of this matter have now been clarified, and our client looks forward to the Court of Appeal considering the substance of her case.”
