A Russian oligarch can’t continue to block a court battle that could result in one of the biggest divorce settlements in history, the Family Court has ruled.
Vladimir Potanin had sought to delay ex-wife Natalia Potanina’s Part III claim for nearly £5 billion pending the outcome of proceedings in Russia, which would bar his ex-wife from making a claim in London. He also claimed any UK ruling would be largely unenforceable.
But Mr Justice MacDonald ruled on Monday that Mrs Potanina’s claim should go ahead. “Some £14 million in costs have been already been incurred by the parties,” he said. “There is an urgent need for this matter to be determined.” A final hearing has been ordered for November.
The judge, sitting in the Royal Courts of Justice, further ruled that the fact that Mr Potanin was subject to sanctions under the 2018 regulations was no bar to his ability to take part in proceedings, and dismissed an attempt to split the hearings.
Mr Potanin is one of Forbes’s 100 richest people in the world, with an estimated wealth of £22 billion, understood to come mainly from his stake in Norilsk Nickel. He also owns Tosbank, a third of Tinkoff Bank, and spent £1.5 billion developing Rosa Khutor ski resort for the 2014 Winter Olympics.
The amount claimed dwarfs the largest publicly known UK award in a divorce, when, in 2021, Dubai’s Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum was ordered to pay £554 million to his estranged wife and children.
The couple married in Russia in 1983 and divorced in 2014. Mrs Potanina moved to London in 2016. A Russian divorce settlement granted her less than 1% of the couple’s estimated wealth at the time. In January 2019, Mrs Potanina was granted leave by Mr Justice Cohen to apply under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984.
Following an application by Mr Potanin, in November 2019 leave was set aside and a renewed application dismissed by Justice Cohen. In January 2021 the Court of Appeal allowed Mrs Potanina’s appeal in part and reinstated the original grant of leave, but this was overturned by the Supreme Court in January 2024.
In September 2025, the Court of Appeal allowed Mrs Potanina’s appeal, reinstated her leave, and directed the case to proceed in the Family Division.
Mrs Potanina’s lawyers say she faces a significant fine in Russia if her ex-husband’s application there is granted, while Mr Potanin’s team have told the English court that she would find it, “difficult, if not impossible, to enforce any order made by this [English] court in circumstances where there is no relevant international treaty between the Russian Federation and the UK”.
The case has prompted debate among family lawyers over the use of the UK courts for so-called ‘divorce tourism’. After last year’s Court of Appeal decision, Sarah Jane Lenihan, partner at Dawson Cornwell, said she was worried about English courts becoming the family court of the world. “Both parties were Russian and lived in Russia throughout their marriage. The wife may understandably have felt dissatisfied with the Russian settlement, but that alone should not make England the forum of choice. Our family courts are already stretched to capacity. However sympathetic one may be to her position, we cannot become the family court of the world.”
Sital Fontenelle, head of the Family Law team at Kingsley Napley LLP, said the case reinforced the UK’s reputation for being the divorce capital of the world, while Jennifer Headon, head of the International Family Law Team at Birketts LLP, warned of the “level of ‘divorce tourism’ in the courts of England and Wales by spouses dissatisfied with the outcome of litigation in courts of other jurisdictions”.
Other family lawyers were better disposed to UK courts being able to right perceived wrongs from elsewhere. Jake Mitchell, senior associated at Freeths said: “When Natalia Potanina received her (comparatively) modest settlement from the Russian courts, it is no surprise that she sought a do-over in the UK.
“As family lawyers, we often call London the ‘divorce capital of the world’ – and this ruling shows why. The courts won’t let unfair overseas settlements go unchallenged where there’s a genuine link to England.”
Nick Gova, head of Family at Spector Constant & Williams, agreed: “English courts are renowned for taking a generous approach to the financially weaker spouse, recognising not just financial but also non-financial contributions to a marriage.
“Critics sometimes describe this as ‘divorce tourism’, but in reality the court is simply applying principles of fairness where there is a genuine connection to this jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal’s decision shows that, even in cases involving international families and huge fortunes, England can provide a forum of last resort where a spouse feels they may not otherwise receive a fair share.”
