Maintenance Claim against “Russia’s Richest Man” before UK Supreme Court

Litigating in England is expensive. That is why the number of international family law cases is relatively small in this country. However, when an international family law dispute does end up before an English court, it tends to involve very wealthy individuals and can be quite spectacular. One such case is Potanina v Potanin, which concerns a maintenance claim brought by Natalia Potanina against her ex-husband, Vladimir Potanin, “Russia’s richest man” according to Bloomberg.

On 31 January 2024, the UK Supreme Court (Lord Leggatt, Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lady Rose; Lord Briggs and Lord Stephens dissenting) gave a judgment in this case, essentially removing an obscure procedure that had previously precluded respondents from properly arguing their case at the initial stage of deciding whether the applicant should be permitted to make an application for financial relief.

Facts

The parties were born in Russia and are both Russian citizens. They married in Russia in 1983 and lived there throughout their marriage. In the 1990s, the husband accumulated vast wealth, estimated to amount to USD20 billion, primarily comprising an ultimate beneficial interest in the shares of a Russian metal and mining company. The parties divorced in 2014, prompting extensive litigation in Russia, the USA and Cyprus, in which the wife unsuccessfully sought to obtain half of the assets beneficially owned by the husband. Following the divorce, the wife relocated to London, becoming habitually resident in England in 2017. In 2018, she applied for permission to seek maintenance.

Legal Framework

Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 gives English courts the power to order financial relief after an overseas divorce. The court has jurisdiction to do so if either party was habitually resident in England throughout the period of one year before the commencement of proceedings or before the overseas divorce. Before making an order for financial relief, the court must consider whether it would be appropriate for an English court to do so, taking account various factors such as the parties’ connections with England, the country in which they were divorced and any other country. If the court is satisfied that it would be appropriate for it to make an order for financial relief, it has the power to make any order it could make in cases of divorce in England. Section 13 of the Act protects respondents by providing that no application under Part III may be made without the court’s permission, obtained in accordance with rules of court. The court may only grant permission if it considers that there is a “substantial ground” for making an application for financial relief.

Issue

The judge initially granted permission at a without notice (previously called ex parte) hearing. However, the judge subsequently allowed the husband’s application to set aside the order granting permission on the basis that he had been materially misled. The Court of Appeal allowed the wife’s appeal adopting a strict test for when the power to set aside an order granting permission could be exercised: there had to be some “compelling reason” to do so and in practice only where a decisive authority had been overlooked or the court had been misled; furthermore, it had to be be possible to demonstrate such a compelling reason by a “knockout blow”. This test was derived from Lord Collins’s obiter dictum at [33] of Agbaje v Agbaje.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that “If this is indeed how the law presently stands, then I would feel bound to say that, in the eloquent words of Mr Bumble, “the law is an ass.” [30].

This is because the test for when the power to set aside an order granting permission could be exercised violated fundamental principles of procedural fairness. If the husband could not demonstrate by a “knockout blow” that the judge had been misled at the initial without notice hearing, the judge was not entitled to hear any argument from the husband regarding whether the test for granting permission under Section 13 was met or to set aside the permission granted after the without notice hearing. In Potanina, this led to what the court described as a “dystopian” [5], “patently unfair” [31] and “foolish” [32] result that the judge’s initial order granting permission was restored, despite the judge’s later conclusion, after hearing argument from both parties, that the test for granting permission had not been met.

The Supreme Court clarified that there was no requirement to demonstrate a “compelling reason” or that the court had been misled or to deliver a “knockout blow”.

The correct position is that if a court makes an order granting permission under Section 13 after a without notice hearing, the respondent has an absolute unfettered right to apply to set aside the order. At the hearing of such an application, the burden still lies on the applicant to demonstrate a “substantial ground” for making the application for financial relief in England. In this context, the word “substantial” means “solid”.

Because of its conclusion that the judge had not been entitled to reconsider his initial decision, the Court of Appeal failed to address certain grounds of appeal raised by the wife, including the question of applicability and effect of the Maintenance Regulation No 4/2009. As a result, the case was remitted to the Court of Appeal.

Comment

Wealthy individuals like Mrs Potanina bring maintenance claims in England because English courts may be more inclined than those of other countries to equally divide the assets, including those beneficially owned by the spouses. Before the Supreme Court judgment, obtaining permission to seek financial relief was relatively easy, as the initial order granting permission was typically granted without notice and the strict test for setting it aside was usually not met. However, the Supreme Court has now decided that this test was wrong in law. The court addressed a procedural issue, not the merits of the claim, in its judgment. While the judgment cannot put an end to “divorce tourism” in England on its own, it will lead to future cases facing greater scrutiny, allowing respondents to properly argue their case at the initial stage of deciding whether the applicant should be permitted to make an application for financial relief.