Potanina v Potanin — the importance of jurisdiction in international divorce cases

16 September 2025

7 min read

Potanin Supreme Court hears important case on financial settlements following overseas divorce

Originally published on 31 October 2023. Updated on 16 September 2025.

Last year, the most senior court in England Wales considered the case of Potanina vs Potanin in relation to an application for financial relief made by the wife under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984.

Here, Legal Director and family law expert Amy Harris explains the case’s importance for future financial relief applications following an overseas divorce.

The complexity of international divorce cases

This decision is a reminder that international divorce cases are highly complex and that the choice of jurisdiction can make a significant difference to financial outcomes.

Couples with assets or connections spanning more than one country should take early, coordinated advice from lawyers in each relevant jurisdiction. Key factors include the likely financial award, enforceability of any order and the practicalities of pursuing litigation abroad.

This case also highlights the length, cost and stress of litigation at this level. We’re increasingly seeing high-net-worth couples turn to private dispute resolution options such as arbitration, which can be faster, more cost-effective and confidential compared to drawn-out public proceedings

Divorce tourism

It’s worth noting that the court has reiterated that when someone pursues a Part III application, they should have the relevant connections to England and Wales. Such an application shouldn’t be seen as a ‘second bite of the cherry’ where a divorce settlement has already been made abroad.

It’s unlikely that this judgment will trigger a wave of so-called ‘divorce tourism’. Part III cases remain relatively rare and the legal threshold for bringing a claim in England and Wales is high. Nonetheless, England continues to be seen as the ‘divorce capital of the world’ — particularly for financially weaker spouses — and London remains an attractive forum for international financial claims.

Background to Potanina vs Potanin

The couple in question — who are both Russian nationals — married in Russia in 1983 and lived in Russia throughout their marriage with their children before divorcing (again in Russia) in 2014.

The financial side of the couple’s divorce was complex, as the husband’s wealth — mainly accrued from shares in companies or other business entities — was estimated to be worth $20bn.

Litigation connected to the couple’s divorce took place in Russia and various other countries that the couple were connected to. The wife’s position was that she was entitled to half of the assets owned by the husband. However, she was unsuccessful in achieving this.

Application to the High Court

In 2019, the wife made an application for permission to the High Court in England and Wales to proceed with an application for financial relief under Part III. This means that Mrs Potanina was seeking a financial settlement in England and Wales due to what she said was an inadequate and unfair settlement in Russia. To make an application for financial relief under Part III, you first have to get permission from the court to make an application. This is to protect the court in England and Wales from too many ‘second bite of the cherry’ cases and ensure that a case has a sufficient legal basis to proceed.

The wife was initially granted permission to proceed with her application at a hearing where the husband wasn’t represented (known as a ‘without notice’ hearing). Mr Potanin appealed this decision, as he felt (among other things) that the court had been misled by the wife.

Mr Justice Cohen — who initially granted permission — allowed the husband’s appeal and surmised that that there had been various misrepresentations made to the court by the wife. In considering those misrepresentations, the Judge assessed that — had he been aware of various matters at the time of the initial hearing — he wouldn’t have granted the wife permission to proceed with her application.

The Court of Appeal

The wife appealed against Mr Justice Cohen’s application in the Court of Appeal and she was successful. The appeal considered the fact that the initial hearing for permission had been dealt with ‘without notice’ to the husband and that Mr Justice Cohen had determined that if the hearing had been ‘on notice’ to the husband, permission may not have been granted at all based on his submissions.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the Judge may have refused permission if the application had been ‘on notice’, however that was said to be “not the issue on appeal”. Mrs Potanina was granted permission to proceed with her application under Part III. The husband appealed this decision to the Supreme Court and the litigation continued.

The Supreme Court

The husband’s appeal was successful and some important legal points relating to applications under Part III were clarified.

The court clarified that for an applicant pursuing an application for financial provision following a foreign divorce, that application must have a “real prospect of success” to meet the threshold for permission for leave to make the application.

Furthermore, the court also found that it was reasonable for the husband to have been given a chance to object to the order in the interests of fairness and justice. The court found that the husband should have been given the “right” to apply to set aside or vary the order. The court confirms that this “right” is not conditional and there’s no need to demonstrate a “compelling reason” or “knock-out blow”. As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, the ongoing litigation in respect of this particular case continued as the Supreme Court returned the case to the Court of Appeal to address the wife’s two further and alternative grounds of appeal.

The case provided clearer guidance on the threshold test required to obtain leave to proceed with an application following an overseas divorce. It’s possible that this judgment may lead to an increase in the number of set aside applications made following the granting of leave to make the application.

Court of Appeal

Back in the Court of Appeal, the judges considered the wife’s application for leave. The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s dismissal of Mrs Potanina’s application and found that she had clearly established there was substantial, solid ground for her to pursue a claim for financial relief under Part III and therefore allowed the appeal. Mrs Potanina can now pursue her application, although it remains to be seen what financial provision she’ll receive. Further litigation will be required.

England & Wales remains popular financial settlement jurisdiction

Family lawyers have welcomed the clarification that the long running case of Potanina vs Potanin has brought to the legal position in England and Wales in respect of applications to grant permission for a former spouse to proceed with an application under Part III following an overseas divorce.

Cases under Part III are perhaps more common than ever before as a result of globalisation and the jurisdiction of England and Wales remains an attractive jurisdiction for financially weaker partners to pursue a divorce or financial settlement following an overseas divorce.

However, to ensure success, it’s important that such cases are handled prudently to ensure that the specific legal guidance is followed.