The latest ruling in long-running litigation between Russian oligarch Vladimir Olegovich Potanin and his ex-wife Natalia Nikolaevna Potanina is ‘unlikely to dispel the perception that the law is unnecessarily complex’, one legal observer drily observed today.

The High Court judgment in Potanina v Potanin (No4) (Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction) dealt with financial remedy proceedings in which Potanina made an application for injunctive relief in response to an anti-suit injunction obtained by her ex-husband in a Russian court in May this year - as well as continuation of interim orders, including an 'anti-anti-suit injunction'.

Mr Justice McDonald refused the wife’s application for injunctive relief. He stayed the execution of his order to allow her time to make any application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Alex Brereton, partner at Hunters Law LLP, said the judgment ‘running at over 21,000 words and centring around (amongst other applications) an “anti-anti suit injunction”, is unlikely to dispel the perception that the law is unnecessarily complex’.

He added: ‘This couple, who have litigated for 12 years since their divorce in Russia in 2014 and spent millions of pounds in legal fees, continue to find novel ways to extend their dispute in the English Family Court.

‘In reaching his conclusion, Mr Justice MacDonald found that the principle of “comity” (that courts mutually recognise and defer to laws and judgments made in other jurisdictions unless there are very good reasons not to do so) outweighed the wife’s criticisms of the Russian proceedings, and found that the husband’s litigation conduct in Russia was not sufficiently unconscionable, or vexatious and oppressive and "whilst ordinarily undesirable, there is nothing in principle to stop parties litigating in two jurisdictions".’

Speaking of a potential appeal, Brereton said if Potanina was to appeal and was unsuccessful ‘then on the face of it [she] faces significant financial penalties in Russia that have the potential to outweigh the full value of her claim here (c. USD $5 billion)’.