The Court of Appeal has unanimously allowed Natalia Potanina to pursue financial claims in England under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, despite her divorce having been finalised in Russia in 2014.

The parties, both Russian nationals, met and married in Russia, where they spent the majority of their 30-year marriage. Their divorce was granted by a Russian court on 25 February 2014. Mr Potanin, whose wealth is reported to be in the billions, was ordered to pay his ex-wife a sum in the millions. However, because most of his assets are held through corporate and business structures, it is understood that they were excluded from the Russian court’s assessment. As a result, Mrs Potanina received less than 1% of the family’s overall wealth and turned to the English courts seeking a more equitable outcome.

Since 2017, Mrs Potanina has been based in London, while Mr Potanin remains in Russia. The case has spanned six years and has resembled a legal rally, with the latest hearing following earlier proceedings about whether she could bring a multi-billion-pound claim in England, despite extensive litigation in Russia.

The Court has now found that Mrs Potanina has a genuine and substantial connection to England (she holds a UK investor visa, owns property here, and has been habitually resident for over a year) and rejected Mr Potanin’s argument that she was a “divorce tourist,” noting that her award in Russia represented only a “tiny fraction” of what she might have received under English law. The Court even commented that her Russian award may not be enough to meet her reasonable needs.

This decision paves the way for what could become one of the most high-value divorce cases in English legal history. Mrs Potanina is reportedly seeking 50% of the value of Mr Potanin’s ultimate beneficial interest in shares in the Russian metals and mining company Nornickel, potentially worth billions.

The judgment is a pivotal moment for international family law in England. It confirms that Part III remains a robust mechanism for spouses who feel inadequately provided for in foreign divorce settlements – as long as they can demonstrate a meaningful connection to England.

The Court’s judgment reinforces the principle that English courts retain broad discretion in Part III cases. Despite procedural tightening, the threshold for jurisdiction has not been narrowed. A genuine connection to England and a realistic prospect of success remain the key criteria. This clarity is likely to encourage further applications from international spouses who may have previously held back. It also underscores England’s reputation for fairness and generosity in financial remedies, particularly in cases involving ultra-high-net-worth individuals. England continues to be seen as a jurisdiction willing to scrutinise foreign divorce outcomes where justice may not have been served.

However, the judgment raises practical concerns. With family courts already stretched, there is a real question as to whether England can continue to accommodate complex, high-value claims from overseas. While there may be sympathy for Mrs Potanina’s position, we must ask whether the family courts in England have the resources to cope. Can England continue to be the “family court of the world”?