Potanin v Potanina [2023] UKSC – Jurisdiction and the Global Reach of London’s Family Courts
Introduction
The 2023 UK Supreme Court case of Potanin v Potanina [2023] UKSC 15 is a landmark decision on the question of jurisdiction in international divorce and financial claims. The case attracted global attention because it involved one of Russia’s wealthiest businessmen and raised critical questions about the circumstances under which the English courts can hear applications for financial relief following a foreign divorce.
This judgment has reaffirmed London’s position as a leading global centre for high-value divorce litigation, but it also clarified that access to its courts is not automatic—especially where a marriage has only limited connection with England and Wales.
Background to the Case
Mr Potanin and Mrs Potanina, both Russian nationals, married in 1983 and lived together in Russia for over 30 years. During the marriage, Mr Potanin built an immense fortune through his role in Russia’s natural resources sector, with his wealth estimated at several billion pounds. The couple had three children and enjoyed a very high standard of living in Moscow.
The parties separated in 2007, and divorce proceedings took place in Russia. The Russian courts granted the divorce and made financial orders awarding Mrs Potanina assets valued at approximately £40 million. She later claimed that this represented only a small fraction of her former husband’s total wealth and that she had not received a fair settlement.
Several years later, Mrs Potanina moved to London and, in 2019, applied under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (“the 1984 Act”) for permission to pursue a financial claim in England following the foreign divorce. The purpose of Part III is to allow a spouse who has already been divorced overseas to seek financial relief in England and Wales, where there is a sufficient connection to this jurisdiction and where the foreign award is deemed inadequate or unjust.
The key question before the Supreme Court was whether Mrs Potanina had the right to bring her claim in the English courts—or whether her limited connection to the UK meant that her application should be dismissed.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court unanimously overturned earlier decisions and refused Mrs Potanina permission to proceed with her financial claim in England.
The Court ruled that the lower courts had misinterpreted the test for granting leave, which is required under Section 13(1) of the 1984 Act. The threshold requires the applicant to show “substantial grounds” for the application.
The Court ruled that:
- The English courts must apply strict scrutiny before accepting jurisdiction under Part III, particularly where the marriage and divorce were overwhelmingly connected to another country.
- The applicant must show a “substantial connection” with England and Wales—mere residence or temporary presence in London is not enough. The Court emphasised that the connection must be more than artificial or strategic.
- The court must also consider whether the foreign proceedings had already provided adequate financial provision and whether any new claim would amount to an abuse of process or “forum shopping.”
In this case, the marriage, wealth, and divorce proceedings were all based in Russia. Mrs Potanina’s move to London occurred years after the divorce, and her connection to the jurisdiction was therefore tenuous. The Supreme Court concluded that allowing her claim would undermine international comity and invite individuals to use the English courts simply to obtain a more generous financial outcome.
The ruling effectively closed the door to Mrs Potanina’s English claim and marked a rare instance where the Supreme Court limited the reach of London’s courts in high-net-worth international cases.
Why Potanin v Potanina [2023] Matters
This decision is a pivotal reminder that while England remains a favoured destination for financial remedy cases, jurisdiction must be properly grounded in a real connection to this country.
For decades, London has been known as the “divorce capital of the world” due to its generous approach to financially weaker spouses and its robust powers to investigate and divide global assets. However, Potanin v Potanina signals a more restrained approach in cases where the link to England is minimal. The ruling confirms that Part III of the 1984 Act is an “ancillary and discretionary remedy,” designed to prevent manifest injustice, not to act as a guaranteed “top-up” mechanism for every foreign award deemed inadequate by English standards.
The case also underscores the balance between fairness and jurisdictional restraint. The English courts have the power to remedy unfair outcomes from overseas divorces, but they will only do so where justice genuinely requires it—not where the applicant has chosen England solely for strategic advantage.
For high-net-worth international families, the decision emphasises the importance of careful jurisdictional planning and understanding how the timing of relocation, domicile, and residence can impact access to English family law remedies.
Practical Implications for Clients
- Connection is Key: To apply for financial relief after an overseas divorce under Part III, there must be a significant link to England—for example, long-term residence, ownership of property here, or established life in the UK.
- Timing Matters: Moving to England after a foreign divorce will not necessarily create jurisdiction. The connection must exist at the time of the application and must not appear artificial or strategic.
- Fairness Balanced with Restraint: The English courts remain available to provide justice where a foreign award is plainly inadequate, but applicants should expect close scrutiny of their motives and links to the UK.
- High-Net-Worth Implications: Wealthy individuals who have lived and litigated abroad should not assume that the English courts will automatically revisit or enhance their settlements.
- Importance of Early Legal Advice: Couples with international lives should seek early jurisdictional advice before or during separation to understand where proceedings are most appropriately issued.
Practitioner Takeaways
- Evaluate the Jurisdictional Threshold Carefully under the 1984 Act. Ensure the applicant has a genuine and substantial connection to England and Wales.
- Scrutinise Foreign Proceedings to determine whether adequate provision was made and whether a Part III claim would be proportionate and justified.
- Guard Against Forum Shopping: Courts are alert to tactical attempts to exploit London’s generous approach to financial provision.
- Advise International Clients Proactively about the implications of residence, domicile, and timing of relocation for jurisdiction purposes.
- For Respondents: If facing a claim under Part III, challenge jurisdiction early and gather evidence demonstrating that the foreign court provided fair and adequate financial relief.
Conclusion
Potanin v Potanina [2023] redefines the boundaries of London’s global divorce jurisdiction. It reinforces that while the English courts will intervene to prevent manifest injustice, they will not serve as a venue of convenience for dissatisfied former spouses whose marriages and divorces are rooted elsewhere.
The case serves as a cautionary tale for internationally mobile couples and a timely reminder for practitioners: the English courts remain powerful—but not limitless. Jurisdiction must be based on substance, not strategy.