Mr Justice MacDonald ruled on 23 June 2026 on case management disputes in a Part III financial remedy case, directing a single joint expert on Russian law and settling the questions the expert must answer.
Key facts
- Who: The parties to the Potanina v Potanin financial remedy proceedings, and anyone following how the court manages expert evidence on foreign law
- From: 23 June 2026
- Source: Natalia Nikolaevna Potanina v Vladimir Olegovich Potanin (No 2) (FDA), [2026] EWFC 148
In Potanina v Potanin (No 2) [2026] EWFC 148, the Family Court sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice dealt with case management issues arising at the FDA held on 16 June 2026. Judgment was handed down on 23 June 2026. It was delivered in private, with leave to publish this version.
Background
The wife applies for financial remedies 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. The background is set out in an earlier judgment of 20 April 2026, [2026] EWFC 80.
A final hearing is listed for November 2026. The issues the parties identified include whether the husband has given full and frank disclosure, whether there is a gap in Russian law or a misapplication of it causing an injustice, and whether an English court should make an order at all, having regard to section 16 of the 1984 Act. The husband says any English order would not be recognised or enforced in Russia and that he has no assets in England and Wales.
The questions for the court
The court had to decide which questions belonged in the wife's questionnaire, who should be the single joint expert on Russian law, what that expert should be asked, and some ancillary directions. A separate judgment will deal with arrangements for the husband to give evidence by video link from Russia.
The expert
The judge said it would be preferable for the evidence to come from an expert practising in Russia. The wife argued that the husband's status, power and influence risked indirect influence on a Russian-based expert. The judge said the court must base its decision on the evidence before it, evaluated under the rules of court, rather than general assertions.
Mr Malbin was not suitable because he was a former member of the law firm that acted for the husband in the Russian asset division proceedings. There was no cogent evidence that Dr Bayramkulov or Dr Vyacheslavov would be vulnerable to such pressure.
On the information available to the court, Dr Vyacheslavov had the greater knowledge of Russian matrimonial and property law and had given evidence in the Family Division before. The court directed that the parties instruct Dr Feodor Vyacheslavov as single joint expert to report on Russian law. The letter of instruction will state that, under FPR r.25.3, the expert owes their duty to the court in this jurisdiction and not to the parties.
The questions for the expert
The judge said that each party simply asking the questions it wished was disproportionate and a recipe for confusion. He set fifteen questions. They cover how Russian courts divide assets on divorce, applicable law, precedent, limitation, alimony and needs, limits on disclosure and on payments, and whether an English order would be recognised and enforced in Russia.
Ancillary directions
Each party is to serve a concise narrative statement on the relevant factors in the 1984 Act by 4.00pm on 8 September 2026. Written proposals ahead of the pFDR are to be exchanged by 4pm on 28 August 2026.
What this means for parties in financial remedy cases involving foreign law
- A single joint expert owes their duty to the court in this jurisdiction, not to either party.
- In this case, the court said that decisions on an expert's suitability rest on the evidence before it rather than general assertions.
- The court set the questions for the expert itself rather than letting each side put its own.
- Anyone facing a similar case should take advice before court-ordered deadlines pass.
Sources
- Natalia Nikolaevna Potanina v Vladimir Olegovich Potanin (No 2) (FDA), [2026] EWFC 148, Family Court, 23 June 2026