Divorce capital of the world? Potanina v Potanin
On Thursday 4 September 2025, the Court of Appeal gave Mrs Potanina the green light to pursue financial relief in the English courts – despite her divorce having been finalised in Russia over a decade ago.
This high-stakes case has drawn intense scrutiny, not only because Mr Potanin’s estimated $20 billion fortune is at play, but also due to the pivotal legal questions it raises about the English court’s willingness to entertain applications where a foreign court has already made a financial award on divorce.
The background
Mr Potanin and Mrs Potanina met in high school. They married in 1983, spent their married life in Russia, had three children, and became extremely wealthy thanks to Mr Potanin’s business interests. Following their divorce in 2014 – and hard-fought litigation in the Russian Courts – Mrs Potanina received about $40m (she said) or $84m (he said) – less than 1% of Mr Potanin’s $20 billion fortune. One reason for this is that most of Mr Potanin’s assets are held via corporate and/or trust structures, rather than in his name.
In 2014, Mrs Potanina obtained a UK investor visa and bought a property in London. She spent increasing time there and it became her permanent home.
She made a claim to the English court for permission to seek a further award from her former husband. The Court in England is prepared to look behind company and trust structures to determine true beneficial ownership, and she hoped this would assist her. English law required her to obtain permission first before she could make her full claim.
Should she be allowed to claim a larger award in the English Court?
The High Court judge who heard her application initially gave her permission, but he dramatically changed his mind when he heard argument from Mr Potanin and he went as far as to say:
“…this is a classic example of a spouse whose background and married life was firmly fixed in her home country and who had no connection with England, seeking after the breakdown of the marriage to take advantage of a more generous approach to her claims than she has been able to achieve in her home country. …if this claim is allowed to proceed then there is effectively no limit to divorce tourism.”
Mrs Potanina appealed to the Court of Appeal, which allowed her appeal on a point of procedure. Mr Potanin appealed to the Supreme Court – they allowed his appeal on the procedural issue but sent the main argument back to the Court of Appeal, which has now ruled in favour of Mrs Potanin.
Legal matters
To bring a claim for financial relief after a foreign divorce under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, you first need to pass the jurisdictional test. Usually, this means you (or your spouse) have been habitually resident in this country for at least a year before your application, or that you (or your spouse) are domiciled here.
Secondly, you need to get over the permission hurdle. The test for this is whether you have a ‘substantial’ or ‘solid’ basis for saying it would be appropriate for an order for financial relief to made in England and Wales. It was this test that the High Court said the wife failed, but the Court of Appeal disagreed. In granting her permission, they said that the Supreme Court had lowered the bar – the applicant needs to show “real prospects of success,” and the court should also take account of the possibility that further supporting material might emerge as the case progresses.
The Court of Appeal also made clear that the applicant’s connection to this country doesn't need to be a “substantial connection.” In particular, the connection doesn't have to be a connection of the marriage with this country. So, the Court of Appeal decided that Mrs Potanin had a real and meaningful connection with this country even though she had only come to live here after the divorce in Russia. It noted that she had made her home here and had largely severed her ties with Russia.
Hardship and Injustice
The sheer scale of the disparity was striking – the wife had received a tiny fraction of the vast family fortune. Hardship and injustice aren’t prerequisites for securing the permission of the court, but they are relevant. Despite receiving something between $40m and $80m from the Russian court, this fell far short of meeting Mrs Potanin’s reasonable needs, given the opulent lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage and the husband’s billions. This imbalance was an injustice which demanded to be addressed in the Court of Appeal’s view.
Where are we now?
Some might call it “divorce tourism” – jetting to London after a foreign divorce to chase a more generous financial settlement here – and an option which only the wealthy could consider. The court’s generosity – both in terms of the level of award and willingness to hear international cases – has earned London the title of “divorce capital of the world.” This case will do nothing to dispel that. If anything, the door is open a little wider.
However, it would be naïve to think the story ends here. An appeal to the Supreme Court from Mr Potanin seems likely – and even if that doesn’t materialise or fails, the real battle is still to come. The court is yet to hear the wife’s substantive claim, which promises to be the largest ever heard by the family court following a foreign divorce.
All eyes remain fixed on this fascinating case as we await the next chapter in this legal saga.
Contact us
Our family lawyers understand that every family situation is unique and provide advice and support bespoke to your circumstances. With up-to-date expertise on international family law, the team has a track record of successfully representing clients in cross-border matters.
