In a pre-trial review judgment on 20 October 2026, the Family Court refused the wife permission to rely on a forensic accountant's report in her Part III financial remedy claim against her husband.
Key facts
- Who: Parties to financial remedy proceedings who want to rely on an expert report commissioned by one side
- From: 20 October 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: Natalia Nikolaevna Potanina v Vladimir Olegovich Potanin (No 6) (Pre-trial review), [2026] EWFC 298
Background
The judgment is a case management ruling by MacDonald J in the Family Court, sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, following a pre-trial review (PTR) on 9 October 2026. The wife has brought a claim under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. The Court of Appeal granted her unconditional leave to proceed on 4 September 2025.
She seeks an award capped at 50% of the value of the husband's ultimate beneficial interest in shares in MMC Norilsk Nickel PJSC held through Interros Invest, the dividends paid on those shares since 2014, and an alleged former matrimonial home in Russia known as "Autumn House". A final hearing of 15 days is listed to begin on 16 November 2026.
The question
The court had to decide whether the wife should be given permission under Family Procedure Rules (FPR) r.25.4(3) to rely on two reports she had commissioned herself: one from a forensic accountant, Priya Giuliani, based on public information, and one from a Russian lawyer, Mr Kulkov. It also considered a further questionnaire and some trial directions.
The decision on the accountant's report
The judge refused permission. Under r.25.4(3), permission is given only where the expert evidence is necessary to assist the court to resolve the proceedings.
The judge accepted that the report was expert evidence, but found it was not necessary. Ms Giuliani described her opinions as "estimates and approximations" produced in a very limited time from incomplete information. The judge said admitting such a report risked questions being put to the husband on an incomplete or false premise.
Her main figures also added little. Her estimate of the husband's indirect interest, about 33.51% of the company's issued share capital, broadly agreed with the husband's figure. Her figure for gross dividends was not materially different from the one the wife had advanced before the report. No application for expert accountancy or valuation evidence had been made at the first directions appointment, and the wife has the same public material, which can be put to the husband in cross-examination.
The Russian lawyer's report
The wife relied on Daniels v Walker (Practice Note) [2000] 1 WLR 1382, as considered in GA v EL [2023] EWFC 187. Under that approach, a party who wants their own expert after a single joint expert has reported must give reasons that are "not fanciful" and show the evidence is necessary. The court had earlier allowed a single joint expert on Russian law, Dr Vyacheslavov. Mr Kulkov's report addressed limitation periods, alimony and limits on the husband's ability to make payments under an English order.
What this means for people in financial remedy proceedings
- Permission is needed before a party's own expert report goes before the court, and the test under r.25.4(3) is whether the evidence is necessary to assist the court.
- A report that is heavily qualified as an estimate, or that adds little to material already in the case, may not meet that test.
- Where a single joint expert has reported, a party wanting separate expert evidence must give reasons that are not fanciful.
- Under PD25D para 3.9, parties must apply for permission to put expert evidence before the court as soon as possible and no later than the first appointment, unless the court directs otherwise.
- Anyone facing similar steps should take legal advice well before the relevant hearing.
Sources
- Natalia Nikolaevna Potanina v Vladimir Olegovich Potanin (No 6) (Pre-trial review), [2026] EWFC 298, Family Court, 20 October 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/298