UK family court judgment in Potanina v Potanin – impact of sanctions in divorce proceedings

23 April 2026

The English Family Court has rejected Vladimir Potanin’s application to adjourn financial remedy proceedings on the basis of UK Russia sanctions – Potanina v Potanin [2026] EWFC 80. See our coverage of a previous consideration of the impact of sanctions on divorce in R v R [2015] EWCA Civ 796.

Natalia and Vladimir Potanin married in the USSR in 1983 and divorced in Russia in 2014. During the marriage Mr Potanin accumulated around $20 billion, mainly through his beneficial interest in c 30% of MMC Norilsk Nickel PJSC. The Russian divorce proceedings excluded most of this wealth because Russian law does not recognise beneficial ownership. Having relocated to London, Natalia Potanin issued an application in the English courts, seeking up to 50% of Mr Potanin’s Norilsk Nickel interest (approx. $5 billion).

In 2022 Mr Potanin was designated under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. He argued that this impacted his ability to participate fairly in the proceedings (he would be forced to litigate “with one hand tied behind his back”) and justified an adjournment. He relied on a range of sanctions obstacles: OFSI legal fee caps of £2 million under General Licence INT/2025/72323088; inability to attend hearings in person; and the PR services ban.

Mr Potanin also started proceedings in the Moscow Arbitrazh Court under Article 248.1 of the Russian Commercial (Arbitrazh) Procedure Code, which confers exclusive Russian jurisdiction over disputes involving sanctioned individuals (see our Russia pages for more information on Article 248). He sought an anti‑suit injunction restraining Ms Potanina from continuing the English proceedings and argued that the English court should adjourn the case pending the outcome. He also argued that any award would be unenforceable because Ms Potanina is a UK citizen, most Russian banks are sanctioned, if she acquired shares or property interests in Russia that would breach sanctions (reg 18B), and Russian counter-sanctions and public policy would preclude recognition of any English judgment.

The Court (MacDonald J) rejected all these arguments and held that:

• Mr Potanin’s UK sanctions designation had not prevented effective participation in English litigation. Since being sanctioned he had litigated successfully to the UK Supreme Court and was actively defending a separate 14‑week commercial trial in the High Court.

• The difficulties did not amount to barriers to access to justice and uncertainty surrounding future licensing and enforcement questions was not a basis to adjourn proceedings.

• Mr Potanin’s Russian law expert said it was not entirely clear whether Article 248 applied to family finance disputes. The possibility that a Russian court might grant anti-suit relief did not justify further delay in the English proceedings.

The Court directed both parties to disclose OFSI correspondence on a rolling basis and required Ms Potanina to file evidence explaining the mechanics, requirements and timescales for OFSI licence applications.