Potanina v Potanin: a landmark case in international divorce proceedings

This case involves two Russian nationals, Natalia Potanina (the wife) and Vladimir Potanin (the husband), who were married for approximately 30 years before they divorced in Russia on 25 February 2014. Throughout their marriage, they resided in Russia and accumulated extreme marital wealth. The husband is now considered one of the richest men in Russia, with an estimated net worth of $20 billion.

Upon divorce, the Russian courts awarded the wife $41.5million, which translated to approximately 1% of the total matrimonial pot. Thereafter, there was a significant degree of litigation between the parties, including appeals to Russia’s highest courts, as well as financial remedy claims initiated by the wife in both Cyprus and the USA.  

History of the litigation

2014 – The Russian court issued a final financial remedy order, dividing the matrimonial property in half. However, as the majority of the husband’s wealth was held by various trusts and companies, the wife received less than 1% of the total marital assets and was thereby denied an award of approximately $6 billion. Lord Leggatt, a Supreme Court Justice in England and Wales, has since acknowledged that the “sum awarded by the Russian courts is only a tiny fraction of the sum which the wife would have received if the property divided had included assets beneficially owned by the husband”.

2014 – In June 2014, the wife obtained a UK investor visa and purchased a property in London later that year.

2017 – The wife moved to London and has lived there ever since.   

October 2018 – The wife applied for financial relief in England under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, arguing that the Russian award was inadequate.

January 2019 – The first hearing of the wife’s application “without notice” to the husband, where the wife sought leave to apply for financial relief in England under Part III. The High Court under Cohen J granted the wife leave to proceed.

November 2019 – Cohen J set the wife’s Part III claim aside, dismissing her application on the basis that he had been materially misled as to the facts, the issues of Russian law, which he argued does not recognise beneficial ownership in the way that England does, and the applicable principles of English law, labelling her connection with England as “both recent and modest”.

May 2021 – The Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal, stating that the power to set aside leave should only be used in compelling circumstances. It found that Cohen J had not been materially misled.

January 2024 – The husband appealed to the Supreme Court, which allowed the appeal but remitted the case back to the Court of Appeal to reconsider two specific grounds:

1. Whether Cohen J had misinterpreted section 16(3) of the 1984 Act regarding the wife’s maintenance needs; and
2. Whether Cohen J’s claim of being ‘misled’ unfairly influenced his refusal to re-grant leave, especially given the wife’s established residence and visa status in the UK.

4 September 2025 – In the most recent appeal, the Court of Appeal ruled in the wife’s favour, granting her leave to proceed with her Part III claim. The court found that:

1. She had a real and meaningful connection to England even in 2019 through her visa, property ownership and habitual residence;
2. She had a persuasive argument in 2019 that the outcome of the Russian proceedings were unjust;
3. The sum awarded by the Russian courts was disproportionately low compared to the lifestyle she enjoyed during the marriage; and
4. Her claim is a potentially complex one and there is a real prospect that further material supporting her case will emerge if the matter proceeds to full hearing.

The wife’s application has been remitted to the Family Division of the High Court to allocate to a judge for a case management hearing.

Key takeaways

This case could become one of the most financially significant divorce proceedings in English legal history. The judgment reinforces the strength of Part III as a mechanism for spouses who believe they were inadequately compensated in foreign divorce settlements, provided they can establish a substantial connection to England. The English courts retain wide discretion in Part III applications, with the key considerations being a genuine link to England and a realistic prospect of a successful claim.

For more information, the most recent judgment can be found at Potanina -v- Potanin – Courts and Tribunals Judiciary.