Potanina v Potanin: Family Court sets out case management issues in Russian divorce claim

The Family Court handed down a case management judgment on 20 April 2026 in a financial remedy claim following a Russian divorce, with sanctions and parallel Russian proceedings among the issues for decision.

Mr Justice MacDonald gave this judgment in the Family Court sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice on 20 April 2026. It followed a one-day case management hearing on 24 February 2025. The judgment was delivered in private, and the judge gave leave for this version to be published.

Background

The parties were both born in 1961 and married in the USSR in 1983. The marriage lasted 30 years. They were divorced in Russia in February 2014. The date of separation is disputed: the wife says November 2013, while the husband relies on a Russian court's finding that it was 2007.

The husband's wealth is vast. In 2024 the Supreme Court noted published estimates of US$20 billion. Most of it is his beneficial interest in 30% of the shares in MMC Norilsk Nickel PJSC. Both parties accept that, under Russian law as it was interpreted in this case, only legally owned assets counted as matrimonial property, so most of that wealth was not divided by the Russian court.

On 4 September 2025 the Court of Appeal granted the wife unconditional leave to proceed with her application under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984.

The questions

The court identified eight case management issues:

• whether the proceedings should be adjourned generally while the husband's proceedings in the Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow are determined;
• whether there should be a split hearing;
• whether the stay on financial disclosure directions made by Francis J on 20 May 2022 should be lifted;
• whether jointly instructed expert evidence on Russian law is needed;
• whether directions should be made about any licence application to the Office for Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI);
• whether to dispense with a Financial Dispute Resolution appointment;
• when to list the final hearing; and
• what the arrangements should be for the husband's attendance at future hearings.

The adjournment argument

The husband argued that, as a sanctioned individual, he would be litigating with "one hand tied behind his back". He pointed to the wife now being a British citizen, so that the asset freeze would stop her dealing with any award without a licence. He also relied on difficulty enforcing against shares in Russia, a £2M cap on legal fees under an OFSI general licence, a travel ban, and restrictions on public relations services.

The wife replied that the Russian procedural provision relied on, Article 248.1 of the Commercial (Arbitrazh) Procedure Code, was introduced two years before the husband was sanctioned on 29 June 2022. She said he had never referred to it as limiting his ability to take part in these proceedings. She also said it was self-evident that he had been able to participate despite his designation, including remotely at this hearing, and pointed to his involvement in King's Bench Division proceedings listed for a 14-week trial from April 2027.

Sources

• Natalia Nikolaevna Potanina v Vladimir Olegovich Potanin (Case Management), [2026] EWFC 80, Family Court, 20 April 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/80