Family Court adjourns wife’s financial remedies claim until appeals against $3.2bn fraud judgment end

Mr Justice Peel held on 14 July 2026 that a wife's application for a financial remedies order, based on a 2017 separation agreement, must wait until the appeals in a related multibillion-dollar fraud claim against her husband are finished.

The judgment was delivered in private and published on condition that the anonymity of the children is strictly preserved.

Background

In June 2022 the judge declined to approve a joint application by the husband (H) and wife (W) for a financial remedies consent order reflecting a separation agreement dated 20 February 2017 ([2022] EWFC 199). The order would have given W assets of more than about £147m, largely through the assignment of loan notes owed to H by Channel Island trusts.

The reason was a Chancery Division claim brought in 2017 by PrivatBank against H and others. The bank alleged that billions of dollars had been misappropriated through fraudulent drawdowns in 2013 and 2014, and it held a worldwide freezing order against H. The Court of Appeal dismissed W's appeal on 22 May 2023.

On 30 July 2025 Trower J found for PrivatBank on liability. On 10 November 2025 he quantified the claim at about $1.9bn, owed jointly and severally by H and Mr Kolomoisky; with interest and costs the sum due is about $3.2bn. Permission to appeal was granted on one ground on 14 January 2026.

W applied in September 2025 to restore her application. PrivatBank applied in January 2026 to be joined as an intervener, to adjourn the hearing, and for related relief. The hearing took place on 3 July 2026.

The question

Should the financial remedies application proceed now, or wait for the appeals, and should PrivatBank be joined to the proceedings or W be ordered to file a Form E (financial statement)?

The decision

The judge adjourned the application until the appellate process, including the attempted appeal to the Supreme Court, is concluded. It will then be restored for case management. W must set out within 28 days of notification of the end of the appeals what relief she seeks, including whether she seeks to uphold the separation agreement in whole or in part.

PrivatBank was joined only for the hearing and the drafting of the order. It must serve on W and H the relevant Court of Appeal and Supreme Court orders and be notified of any application to restore.

The reasoning

The judge said that any financial provision for W would reduce the assets against which PrivatBank would seek to enforce, and that it was hard to see what further provision could be made against a husband whose net indebtedness was potentially in multiple billions of dollars. Financial remedies should await the outcome of the appeal, which affects the sums available to H.

He did not extend the wait to enforcement proceedings, saying leaving matters until all of those conclude would go too far into the future without judicial oversight.

He refused to join PrivatBank more widely, as it had no apparent interest beyond objecting to a final consent order, and refused a Form E order, as he was not persuaded the bank had standing to seek one. He added, as an observation without full argument, that he would be unlikely to approve an order putting the loan notes beyond enforcement.

Sources

• Sofia Greenstein v Gennadiy Bogolyubov [2026] EWFC 190, Family Court, 14 July 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/190