A second chance at fairness: How can Part III Claims help after an overseas divorce?

As families become more international, living, working and building wealth across different countries, cross‑border marriages and divorces are increasingly common. But what happens when a divorce abroad leaves someone with an unfair or insufficient financial settlement?

When those relationships break down, it is not unusual for divorce proceedings to take place in a jurisdiction that bears little resemblance to the lived reality of the family, or their wealth structure.

For many international families, England and Wales is seen as a fair and reliable place to resolve financial disputes, with its strong disclosure obligations and wide discretion. But this assumption can be misleading. When a divorce has already taken place overseas, the role of the English court is deliberately restrained, and often much more limited than people expect.

Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (MFPA 1984) allows a party whose marriage has been dissolved or annulled, or there has been a separation by way of judicial separation, in a foreign jurisdiction, to seek to rely on Part III to apply for financial remedies in England and Wales, provided certain conditions are met. This legislation was introduced to ensure fairness where foreign courts may not have provided adequate financial provision. That said, Part III MFPA 1984 should not be viewed as a mechanism to “upgrade” a foreign divorce. It is a carefully controlled safety net, used only when the statutory conditions are met and justice demands further intervention.

What is the purpose of Part III?

Part III was never intended to allow disappointed spouses to re‑run financial claims simply because the outcome abroad was less generous than might have been achieved in England or Wales. The legislation reflects a balance between:

• Respect for foreign courts and international comity; and
• The need to prevent real financial injustice where foreign provision is demonstrably inadequate.

That tension runs through the case law and explains why jurisdiction, connection and fairness are recurring themes in Part III decisions.

As Lady Hale made clear in Agbaje v Agbaje [2010], Part III is designed to give effect to “a sense of justice”, not to confer a right to a second bite of the cherry. It is notable that Agbaje remains the leading authority not because of the size of the assets (around £700,000), but because it sets out the framework for deciding Part III claims: assessing the adequacy of the foreign settlement, the parties’ connections to England and elsewhere, and whether refusing relief would result in unfairness.

Why jurisdiction is only the first step

The starting misconception is that establishing jurisdiction opens the door to a full English style redistribution exercise. In reality, jurisdiction merely enables the court to consider whether it should intervene at all.

Even where jurisdiction exists, the court must still decide whether it is appropriate to grant permission (leave) and, if so, what, if any, financial relief should follow. 

This is particularly important in international cases where the marriage, the divorce and the parties’ lives may have only a tenuous connection to England.

How has this played out in recent and important caselaw? 

The Supreme Court’s decision in Potanina v Potanin [2024] has prompted renewed interest in Part III, particularly among ultra high net worth international families. It is important, however, not to overstate its effect.

The Supreme Court clarified that the threshold for obtaining permission to proceed under Part III is not high, but applicants must still demonstrate a “substantial ground” for the claim. The court reaffirmed that Part III is intended to provide relief where foreign provision is inadequate, not simply different.

Crucially:

• Mrs Potanina succeeded on appeal in reinstating her Part III application, reversing the summary dismissal at first instance.
• However, the substantive Part III claim has not yet been determined and remains to be heard by the High Court.
• The decision does not mean that financial relief will ultimately be granted, only that the door to consideration has been reopened.

Far from diluting the safeguards around Part III, Potanina accentuates that while English courts should not prematurely shut out arguable claims, they remain alert to the limits of their role in international financial disputes.

In the case of Juffali v Juffali [2016], a case concerning substantial wealth, the High Court granted significant relief under Part III, despite a Saudi Arabian divorce. The Court decided that the Wife in this case had a deep, long standing connection to England, and that the foreign provision had failed to meet her reasonable needs. 

Finally, it was clearly reiterated in the case of Hammoud v Zawawi [2019], in which the Wife in this case secured an award of £24,075 million following a foreign divorce, as the Court decided that again, the foreign financial outcome fell short of meeting the Wife’s needs, and due to the significant assets located within England, the court felt it could step in. 

Conclusion

The way forward in all successful Part III claims is not dissatisfaction with a foreign outcome, but inadequacy amounting to injustice. There is a common misconception that the court in England & Wales will ‘top up’ lesser awards, but this is not the case.

Part III MFPA 1984 remains a powerful yet misunderstood tool in international family law. It exists to prevent real financial injustice, but not to provide global litigants with a choice of the “best” court after the event.

Cases such as Agbaje, Juffali, Hammoud and most recently Potanina show that while English courts are prepared to intervene where justice requires it, they do so selectively, cautiously and on principled grounds.