The recent Court of Appeal judgment in Potanina v Potanin (No 2) [2025] EWCA Civ 1136 (“Potanina”) reinforces the importance of wealth protection for international clients even where there is no current connection to England. Wealthy spouses residing in less generous divorce jurisdictions are now arguably left more vulnerable to a susbsequent attack on their assets via the English court.
In light of the decision, it has never been more important to ensure that English compliant pre or post nuptial agreements are in place to help avoid a situation where a spouse effectively gets a second chance to litigate in England.
Equally this decision is highly relevant for a financially weaker spouse. If you have divorced abroad and are unhappy with your settlement then Potanina highlights the value in taking prompt specialist advice to investigate whether further claims may be brought in the UK to remedy that unfairness.
So what happened….
Background
Mr and Mrs Potanin are Russian nationals who divorced in Russia in 2014. As the country’s second wealthiest oligarch Mr Potanin’s wealth was estimated to be a staggering $20 billion. However, the vast majority of that wealth was held beneficially via trust and company structures. The Russian court did not share anything beyond what was held by Mr Potanin directly. As a result Mrs Potanina received just 1% of the total wealth accumulated during a long marriage. This is a drop in the ocean compared to the award she would have likely received if the proceedings had taken place in England where she would have had a claim to up to 50% of the assets whether held directly or beneficially.
In the years that followed the Russian divorce, Mrs Potanina moved to England and in 2018 she made an application for financial relief after a foreign divorce based on her newly acquired connection here. Such applications can be made to remedy situations where inadequate provision has been made by a foreign divorce court or where the foreign court lacks jurisdiction in respect of particular assets (commonly the case with pensions for example). However, before the court will consider an application it is first necessary for the application to obtain permission from the court and that requires establishing a connection to England as well as a substantial ground for making the application. After protracted litigation up to Supreme Court level (further details of which can be found here: Supreme Court Decision of Potanina v Potanin) the question of whether permission should be granted was ultimately returned to the Court of Appeal who decided on 4 September 2025 in favour of Ms Potanina.
In their decision the Court of Appeal stated that the Judge had made an error in dismissing Mrs Potanina’s application for leave and ruled that she had ‘amply established that there was substantial ground for her claim for some financial relief, even if not a full-blown award’. They found that she had a ‘real and meaningful connection’ with England having been habitually resident here for at least a year and that meant she was ‘well placed to present a persuasive argument that the outcome of the Russian matrimonial proceedings had been unjust to her’. She is now able to pursue her claim for financial relief after a foreign divorce and the outcome of that claim will be hotly anticipated by family lawyers across the country.
Implications
The English divorce courts have long been viewed as probably the most attractive for securing a generous financial award. We find ourselves top of the list for “divorce tourism”. What is significant in Potanina is that the Court of Appeal attributed Mrs Potanina a real and meaningful connection to England in circumstances where the previous judge, in dismissing her leave, had felt it to be ‘recent and modest’. Arguably in doing so they have lowered the threshold for establishing the jurisdiction to bring a claim. This leaves wealthy international clients exposed and paves the way for more claims by parties abroad who feel they have not been treated fairly by more restrictive overseas courts.
International Advice
If you or your spouse are based in England or have a connection here (or if you are simply globally mobile) then seeking prompt specialist legal advice is essential whether you are contemplating marriage or divorce or if you have an international settlement you consider unfair.
Pre and Post nuptial agreements can not only be used to ring-fence wealth but can also include jurisdiction clauses to specify where proceedings should take place and the law of which country should apply. This can mitigate the risk of doubt litigation and second claims.
The Weightmans International Family Team are experienced in preparing and negotiating such agreements, working in conjunction with our International Private Wealth Team and worldwide contacts in order to ensure a seamless and comprehensive service. Wework alongside international advisors to produce an agreement (or agreements) that ensure you are protected regardless of where you choose to call home.
Careful advice in conjunction with overseas advisors prior to issuing any divorce proceedings is essential to ensure that your claims are not unfairly restricted.
Conclusion
In summary, the recent decision in Potanina v Potanin highlighted that:
- There may now be more scope to make an application for a financial order in England when there has been a previous order in another country particularly if the order overseas appears unfair.
- Prompt advice from a specialist international family lawyer is essential when there are international elements in a divorce or relationship breakdown.
- Specialist legal advice especially around jurisdiction and fairness is essential in such cases to prevent prolonged and costly proceedings.
- Prenuptial and postnuptial agreements have greater importance than ever in cases with international elements.
For further guidance on the implications of this case, contact our international divorce lawyers.
