was the headline in the London Financial Times regarding a case in which Family Law in Partnership acted for Ilya Golubovich who was described by that newspaper as ”a Russian millionaire”.  Reference was made in several of the broadsheets to Lord Justice Thorpe’s comments as to “whether there should not be a more stringent allocation of judicial time to cases such as this where the parties have slender connection with our jurisdiction”. 

To the extent that this can be regarded as a criticism of the parties in this case his comments are unfair.  To start with, Ilya Golubovich was, until very recently, resident in the UK on a tier 1 investment visa that required him to invest at least £1 million in specified British institutions.  If rich foreigners are to be encouraged into the country based on this sort of criteria it is invidious then to criticise them for using our courts. 

In fact Ilya Golubovich did not ask for assistance from the English court.  He started proceedings in Russia.  It was his wife, Elena who brought proceedings in London, knowing that she would most likely do better financially here.  Surely, rather than attack foreigners using our courts we must reform our divorce law so that we are not regarded as the most ‘wife friendly’ jurisdiction in the world and one that creates a climate in which a ‘clean break’ is rarely achievable.  We recognise that our law must protect the vulnerable and that women are seriously prejudiced when they give up work to raise a family but how many other jurisdictions though make life long maintenance orders as standard?

The proceedings were complicated but what is clear is that Ilya achieved a divorce in Russia before Elena achieved a divorce in England.  She then sought to and was successful in persuading Mr Justice Singer not to recognise the Russian divorce.  That decision was wrong and the Court of Appeal has clearly now said so.  Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (financial relief after an overseas divorce) was enacted after a Law Commission report precisely to prevent this sort of order being necessary.  When Mr Justice Singer decided that the English court could ignore the Russian divorce he took the law back over 20 years.  Had Ilya Golubovich not challenged this decision it would have opened up the floodgates to anyone wishing to ignore proper process in their home jurisdiction. 

Of course what Lord Justice Thorpe was reflecting is something that we will all be concerned with as the UK coalition government’s austerity measures bite: how are we going to maintain the excellent standards of service that we have become used to when budgets are being slashed?  Judicial time is bound to be at even more of a premium and what legal practitioner’s will have to do is find better ways of resolving disputes so that expensive court proceedings can be avoided.  Collaborative family law and mediation are now widely offered by many family lawyers. For more information see www.resolution.org.uk for specialist family lawyers offering these alternative services.

 For more information about the effects of this case on your personal circumstances contact info@flip.co.uk