Potanina (Respondent) v Potanin (Appellant)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0179

Parties

Appellant(s)

Vladimir Potanin

Respondent(s)

Natalia Potanina

Issue

This case concerns an application for leave to apply for financial relief in England and Wales following a divorce in Russia, under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (the “1984 Act”). The issues to be decided are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to: i) Set aside the High Court’s decision to refuse the wife leave to apply for financial relief under the 1984 Act. ii) Grant the wife leave under the 1984 Act.

Facts

The parties are Russian citizens who were married in Russia in 1983. They lived in Russia throughout their marriage and were divorced in Russia in 2014. During their marriage Mr Potanin (the “husband”) accumulated significant wealth. Their divorce was followed by significant litigation in Russia regarding division of their assets. The result of this litigation was that Mrs Potanina (the “wife”) received half of the value of the assets owned by the husband. However, this left out most of the husband’s wealth, which was held in various trusts and companies of which he was the beneficiary. These assets were not regarded as marital assets by the Russian courts. Following the divorce, the wife obtained a UK investor visa and bought a flat in London. She has been habitually resident in the England since 2017. In 2018, she applied to the Family Division of the High Court in England and Wales for permission to seek a financial remedy under Part III of the 1984 Act. This gives the Courts in England and Wales the power to grant financial remedies following an overseas divorce, if the parties’ have a connection to England and Wales. S13 of the 1984 Act provides that leave must be obtained from the court before an application for financial relief is considered, and that such leave will only be granted if there is substantial ground for doing so. In January 2019, at a hearing without notice to the husband, the High Court granted the wife leave to being an application for financial relief. The husband applied to set aside the leave. In November 2019, the High Court set aside the wife’s grant of leave. In addition, the High court refused the wife’s new application for leave. The wife appealed this to the Court of Appeal, who allowed the wife’s appeal on the set aside order. The Court of Appeal did not at that stage consider whether the High Court were correct to refuse the wife’s new application for leave, because they re-instated her original grant of leave. The husband then appealed this to the Supreme Court, who allowed his appeal regarding the set aside hearing. The grant of leave issued by the High Court in January 2019 was therefore set aside. The Supreme Court remitted the remaining questions back to the Court of Appeal. These concerned whether the High Court, in its November 2019 decision, was correct to refuse the wife’s new application for leave. The Court of Appeal allowed the wife’s appeal. They considered that the High Court was wrong to refuse her fresh application for leave. The Court of Appeal also decided to grant the wife’s application for leave to appeal. The husband now appeals this decision to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

30 October 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top