The Court of Appeal’s ruling in favour of Natalia Potanina in the ‘blockbuster’ Potanina v Potanin case could reaffirm London’s reputation as the divorce capital of the world, leading legal experts have told Spear’s.
Potanina v Potanin is the latest installment of a years-long divorce case involving Vladimir Potanin, one of Russia’s richest men, and his former wife, Natalia Potanina.
The hearing centred on Mrs Potanina’s claim for financial relief in England and Wales following the couple’s divorce in Russia in 2014, where she was awarded just 1 per cent of the marital assets in the courts.
Thursday’s ruling confirms that Mrs Potanina has a sufficient connection to England to pursue a Part III claim under the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, despite only coming to the UK after the couple’s Russian divorce in 2017.
Related
Potanina’s representative, Frances Hughes, partner at Hughes Fowler Carruthers, said her client was ‘delighted’ with Thursday’s judgment, and hoped the long-running case could now be resolved.
‘The decision of the Court of Appeal is a second vindication of our client in making her application in 2019. Our client is grateful for the consideration given by the court to her case and is delighted that the Court of Appeal has recognised, for the second time, the merits of her application,’ Hughes said after the ruling.
Legal experts believe the ruling could pave the way for one of the most valuable financial remedy claims ever heard in England and Wales, and could have significant implications for cross-border divorce law.
Content from our partners
[See also: Best family lawyers for high net worth individuals]
Hayley Trim, partner at Irwin Mitchell, said the ‘landmark decision’ would reinforce ‘the role of the English courts in international divorce proceedings’.
‘It highlights that the jurisdiction remains open for business when it comes to complex, cross-border financial disputes and while the specifics of Mrs Potanina’s case are unique, the ruling signals a broader willingness to engage with claims where foreign outcomes may raise questions of fairness,’ Trim said.
Peter Burgess, partner at Burgess Mee, echoed this: ‘Today’s ruling further cements London’s position as the divorce capital of the world. Mrs Potanina’s $6 billion claim has been thrown a lifeline, by the Court of Appeal allowing the claim to proceed. For UHNW individuals who have been badly served abroad, this judgment will be very welcome. Aspiring “divorce tourists” may appreciate the opportunity to demonstrate connection to this country at the substantive hearing, rather than at an earlier stage.’
Sital Fontenelle, head of the family law team at Kingsley Napley, said the case had been closely watched by ‘all lawyers to international HNWs’, describing it as the ‘latest determined example of a wife testing England’s reputation for being a fair and generous forum’.
‘Although today’s decision is, of course, fact specific, the key point is that the door is still open; it reinforces our reputation for being the divorce capital of the world and importantly there was no narrowing of the test for other potential claimants who have the appetite to bring litigation here.’ Sarah Jane Lenihan, partner at Dawson Cornwell, said the verdict was one ‘few had expected’, and warned it could put further pressure on already overstretched family courts.
‘The question now is whether it will open the door for others who have divorced overseas to seek a second bite at the cherry in England. 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.’
But Amy Harris, legal director in the family team at Brabners Personal, said she did not think the case would ‘trigger a wave of so-called ‘divorce tourism’. Part III cases remain relatively rare and the legal threshold for bringing a claim in England and Wales is high,’ she said.
Rosie Schumm, partner at Forsters LLP, noted that the ruling reinforces the willingness of English courts to review foreign divorce settlements when there is a genuine connection to the jurisdiction and evidence that the original outcome may have been unfair.
‘While the case has sparked debate around ‘divorce tourism’, the judgment makes clear that courts apply a rigorous, principled framework, allowing claims to proceed only where there is a real link and potential hardship,’ she said.
‘For international high-net-worth individuals, it highlights England’s strategic appeal as a forum that values transparency and offers meaningful protection to the financially weaker spouse.’
Potania v Potaniana: the long-running divorce case
The couple are both Russian citizens. They met and married in Russia and spent the majority of their 30-year marriage in the country until it was dissolved by a Russian Court on 25 February 2014.
Mr Potanin, whose wealth is estimated at $20 billion, was ordered to pay his ex-wife between $41.5 million and $84 million by the courts in their native Russia in 2014.
[See also: Leading family lawyers on the future of HNW divorce]
As almost all of Potanin’s assets were held through companies and other business entities, where he was registered as a beneficial owner, they were not considered by the Russian court when dividing up the family’s wealth.
As a result, Mrs Potanina received less than 1 per cent of the wealth and sought more (up to $5 million) in England under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984.
Since 2017, the wife has been based in London while the husband continues to reside in Russia.
The six-year case has played out like a game of tennis, with the latest hearing following a previous one that centred on whether Natalia Potanina should be allowed to bring a $6 billion claim for financial relief against her former husband in the English courts, despite having already litigated widely in Russia.
The court found in her favour.
Despite dragging on for nearly seven years, today’s ruling is unlikely to be the end, Fontenelle said, suggesting that Mr Potanin may ask the Supreme Court to consider the substance of the case, as their original review was procedural.
‘This is a blockbuster case in financial terms – with considerable £s at stake in the billions rather than millions – so we can expect it will continue to be hard fought for several years to come.’
