Potanina v Potanin (Case Management) [2026] EWFC 80

Judgment date: 20 April 2026

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/80

MacDonald J. Case management decision on the wife’s claim under Part III Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 after a Russian divorce. The court refused the husband’s applications to adjourn proceedings and for a split hearing, lifted a stay on disclosure, and set directions toward a final hearing.

Background

The parties, Natalia Potanin, the wife, and Vladimir Potanin, the husband, were both born in 1961 in the former USSR. They married in 1983 in the USSR and divorced in Russia in 2014. The husband amassed vast wealth during the marriage, including a significant shareholding in a major Russian mining company.

Under Russian law, only legally owned assets were divided on divorce, excluding beneficially owned assets. As a result, the wife received a comparatively small award ($41.5m on her case and $84m on the husband’s case), which she claims was less than 1% of the marital wealth. She has since pursued claims in multiple jurisdictions seeking a larger share.

The wife moved to England in 2014 and applied in 2018 under Part III of the 1984 Act for financial relief following an overseas divorce. After extensive litigation – including appeals to the Court of Appeal ([2021] EWCA Civ 702) and subsequently the Supreme Court ([2024] UKSC 3) – she was granted permission in 2025 to proceed. Her claim in England is valued at up to $5 billion.

The husband is a sanctioned individual under UK law, subject to asset freezes, travel bans, and other restrictions, such as a director disqualification. In order to deal with any award made by the court, the wife would have to be granted a licence by the UK government Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI).

The husband has initiated proceedings in Russia seeking to restrain the wife from pursuing claims abroad.

Procedural history

The case has been ongoing for approximately eight years before reaching substantive case management.

At this hearing MacDonald J considered multiple case management issues including:

i) Whether to adjourn proceedings pending Russian litigation;

ii) Whether to order a split hearing;

iii) Whether to lift a stay on disclosure;

iv) Whether expert evidence on Russian law was required;

v) Directions concerning sanctions licensing (OFSI);

vi) Whether to dispense with a Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) appointment; and

vii) Timetabling toward final hearing.

Key findings

Adjournment

The husband’s application to adjourn proceedings pending Russian anti-suit proceedings was refused, MacDonald J holding that the outcome of the Russian proceedings was uncertain, the jurisdiction of English courts was established, the case had already been significantly delayed by 8 years over which time £14m of costs had been incurred; and sanctions did not prevent the husband from participating effectively, as he had already done so, including in the Supreme Court.

Split hearing

The court refused the husband’s application for a split hearing which would separate ‘appropriateness of forum’ from substantive relief. The authorities (e.g. Zimin v Zimina [2017] EWCA 1429, [2018] 1 FCR 164 at [98]) discourage split hearings in Part III proceedings, as the statutory framework required consideration of ‘all the circumstances’ together given that the issues under s 16 (forum) and s 18 (substantive order) are interrelated.

Disclosure

A stay on the directions, including as to disclosure, made by Francis J in 2022 should be lifted. The husband had failed to show a material change of circumstances in order to discharge the directions; the alleged risks under Russian law were not shown to create a real risk of prosecution. As English law governed procedure, it was determined that disclosure was necessary and proportionate.

Expert evidence

It was determined that expert evidence on Russian law was necessary; it was directed that this would be a joint instruction though directions as to such evidence would be finalised at the next hearing.

Sanctions/OFSI

Limited directions were made in respect of sanctions, though it was directed that the wife was to explain the steps for obtaining licences and both parties were to disclose communications with OFSI (subject to privilege). A final licence application could not be determined without knowing the award.

FDR

MacDonald J refused to dispense with an FDR, holding that they were an essential part of financial remedy proceedings. Even the most complicated cases have settled at FDR and in the instant case there were no exceptional circumstances that justified circumventing one.

Final hearing

The case was listed for a 15-day final hearing before MacDonald J in November 2026, with a PTR to be listed in advance. MacDonald J emphasised the need to progress the long-running litigation efficiently toward final determination.

Attendance

The husband was permitted to attend hearings remotely on account of his travel sanctions.