London as the destination divorce capital of the world
Some destination weddings might be destined for a destination divorce as the recent case of Potanina and Potanin defined some important considerations when looking at Jurisdiction and the Court’s ability to deal with the finances arising from a foreign divorce within the UK.
The matter went all the way to the Supreme Court and it is only the second time the Supreme Court has considered applications for financial relief following an overseas divorce under Part III. The first was Agbaje v Agbaje [2010] UKSC 13, which set out some foundations and guidance.
Background
Natalia Potanina and Vladimir Potanin, both Russian nationals, were married for 30 years before divorcing in Russia in 2014. While the Russian court divided marital property equally, it excluded most of Mr Potanin’s estimated $20bn wealth held in trusts and companies. Mrs Potanina later moved to London and sought financial provision under the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act (MFPA) 1984.
In 2018, she applied for leave without notice under s13 MFPA. Cohen J granted leave, but later set aside his own order after Mr Potanin argued the Court had been misled by Ms Potanina as to her connections to the UK. The Court of Appeal reinstated the leave order, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Decision
1. Threshold for Leave
The Court tightened the guidance from Agbaje. While Lord Collins had said the threshold was “not high” but required a “solid” case, Lord Leggatt clarified that the test is akin to the civil standard of a “real prospect of success”—higher than simply showing the claim is not abusive or hopeless.
2. Right to Challenge Without-Notice Orders
The Court rejected the Court of Appeal’s restrictive approach, which required a “compelling reason” or “knock-out blow” to set aside leave. Instead, it confirmed that under FPR r8.25 and r18.10(3), respondents have an unconditional right to apply to set aside or vary such orders. Judges must hear both sides before making a final decision.
Lord Leggatt criticised the previous interpretation as “patently unfair” and stressed that judges make better decisions when hearing arguments from both parties.
Whilst allowing the husband’s appeal, the Supreme Court did not agree that the wife’s case should be dismissed in its entirety. The case was remitted back to be heard by the Court of Appeal.
Court of Appeal Decision on 4 September 2025
The Wife’s appeal was upheld, and Cohen J’s decision to dismiss her application for leave under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 was overturned.
The Court of Appeal determined that it was neither necessary nor proportionate to remit the Wife’s application to the Family Division for reconsideration. Based on the evidence presented to Cohen J in 2019, the Court of Appeal readily concluded that the Wife had strong and substantial grounds for seeking financial relief under Part III, confirming that judges have wide discretion in these cases. The wife showed she had a genuine link to this country and a realistic chance of success.
It might seem unfair that someone can move to a different country after separating, just to get a better financial settlement than what their home country’s courts awarded. The husband accused his ex-wife of doing exactly that—calling it “divorce tourism.” Some worry this could lead to more claims from international couples, putting extra pressure on the courts. In reality, the ultra-wealthy have always had the means to fight these battles, and with such huge sums involved, it’s often worth it for them.
For now, we don’t know if Mrs. Potanina will achieve a better outcome than she did in Russia, she’s only been given permission to pursue it. The final outcome is still undecided, and the long-running litigation continues.
Whilst the decision has firmed up London’s role in divorce on the world stage it also provided further guidance on cases that might arise in the future in that any potential claim must be reviewed carefully before applying for leave and the respondents have a clear right to challenge leave orders. We can expect more robust scrutiny at the leave stage and there may be further guidance through case law on the horizon as London maintains its international role as a place for parties seeking more favourable financial outcomes in divorce.
Get in touch:
Our experienced team of family solicitors understand the significant impact that the division of matrimonial assets during a divorce can have on your future. When there are Jurisdictional implications in divorce between spouses, parties should seek legal advice throughout divorce proceedings.
To discuss these matters, or to find out how we can assist you further, please telephone us on 01494 451355 (High Wycombe office), 01628 958445 (Marlow office) or 020 3443 9576 (City of London office).