Potanina (Respondent) v Potanin (Appellant)

On appeal from: [2021] EWCA Civ 702

The parties married in Russia in 1983 and lived there throughout their marriage. They have three adult children. In the 1990s, the husband amassed a large fortune, estimated to amount to $20 billion. The majority of his assets comprised shares in companies or other business entities. These were not registered in the husband's name, though the husband was their beneficial owner. The parties divorced in 2014, which prompted extensive litigation in Russia, as well as claims in the USA and Cyprus. The wife sought to obtain half of the assets beneficially owned by the husband, but her attempts were unsuccessful.

In 2019, the wife sought permission to apply for financial relief pursuant to Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. The High Court Judge initially granted the permission at a "without notice" hearing, where the husband was not represented. However, the Judge subsequently allowed the husband's application to set the permission aside on the basis that the Judge had been misled. The Court of Appeal allowed the wife's appeal. The husband now appeals to the Supreme Court.

The issue is:

Should the court have granted the wife permission to apply for financial relief pursuant to Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984?

By a majority of three to two, the Supreme Court allows the appeal. Lord Leggatt gives the leading judgment, with which Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lady Rose agree. Lord Briggs gives a dissenting judgment, with which Lord Stephens agrees.

More information is available on our website: UKSC 2021/0130