A deputy High Court judge has given judgment on a wife's financial remedies application, finding that a husband who attended by telephone from Cyprus and acted in person had not had his Article 6 rights breached.
Key facts
- Who: The husband and wife in this divorce; the judgment deals with the husband's claim that he could not afford legal representation
- From: 25 March 2026
- Source: Elena Gennadievna Kroupeeva v Mikhail Viacheslavovich Kroupeev [2026] EWFC 85
Background
In [2026] EWFC 85, James Ewins KC, sitting as a s.9(4) deputy High Court judge in the Family Court at the Royal Courts of Justice, gave judgment on 25 March 2026. The final hearing began on 23 February 2026. The judgment was delivered in private, and the judge gave leave for this version to be published.
The wife applied for financial remedies on a Form A dated 8 July 2024. Both parties are 59 and of Russian origin. They married in June 1988, moved to London in 1993 and hold dual Russian-British citizenship. They have two adult children. The husband claims to be tax resident in Cyprus.
The case history was long. The judgment records a legal services payment order (LSPO), maintenance pending suit and costs orders, a worldwide freezing order dated 11 April 2025, charging orders, third party disclosure and preservation orders, and suspended committal orders. The judge said the husband's engagement had been significantly tainted by ongoing breaches of court orders, including failure to give financial disclosure and to pay money as ordered. Suspended committal orders were made in respect of some of these breaches and were later activated. He remained in breach of those orders throughout the final hearing.
The wife's case is that the wealth is entirely matrimonial and that, after a long marriage, she has a full sharing claim. She asks the court to draw adverse inferences about the husband's resources, including those held through the Rossini Trust and corporate structures.
The husband's representation
The husband's former solicitors stopped acting for him, and he has since acted in person. He attended the final hearing by telephone from Cyprus. He argued that the worldwide freezing order left him without funds to pay for representation.
The decision on representation
The judge found that the exceptions in the freezing order allowed the husband to spend up to £10,000 a month on legal fees. He also found that the husband could have applied at the hearings in September 2025 and January 2026 for a further exception, as one had been sought and granted for an earlier hearing.
The judge concluded that it was the husband's choice not to be represented at the final hearing and that he could have obtained legal representation had he wanted to. He therefore held that the husband's Article 6 rights (the right to a fair hearing) had not been breached.
What this means for people in financial remedies proceedings
- The judge's finding on representation turned on the specific exceptions in the freezing order in this case and on the applications the husband could have made.
- Where a freezing order restricts spending, the judgment shows the court looking at what the order's exceptions permit and whether a further exception was sought.
- If you are involved in financial remedies proceedings, get legal advice before any deadline passes.
Sources
- Elena Gennadievna Kroupeeva v Mikhail Viacheslavovich Kroupeev [2026] EWFC 85, Family Court, 25 March 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/85