Sloutsker v Sloutsker: The Family Court Sends a Clear Message on Dishonesty

Sloutsker v Sloutsker: The Family Court Sends a Clear Message on Dishonesty

Judgement in this case was published today and unusually for the family court it is published without anonymity, sending a clear message that the court will not tolerate dishonesty and obstruction in family proceedings.

Background

Family Law in Partnership acts for Alona Sloutsker in her divorce and financial claim against her former husband, Vladimir Sloutsker, a prominent former Russian senator. The legal team at FLiP was led by David Allison and included Grace Lawrence and Rachel Wilson. The legal team includes leading counsel, Alexis Campbell KC and Helen Williams at 29 Bedford Row.

In his judgement Mr Justice Garrido described “a lifestyle consistent with extreme wealth. The family home is a very grand: 2,790 square metres, nine bedrooms, a heated indoor pool, a massage room, a cinema room, a commercial chef’s kitchen, a wine cellar, a gym, a four-car garage.” Despite this, when divorce proceedings were started the financial tap was promptly turned off. Mr Sloutsker stopped paying the mortgage and failed to comply with orders for financial disclosure and for support of his wife and their young children.  He effectively tried to absolve himself of all responsibility for them.

The Judge’s Findings

Mr Sloutsker attempted to hide his wealth from the court and repeatedly failed to comply with orders for financial disclosure. This was litigation misconduct.

Despite Mr Sloutsker’s pleas of poverty, Mrs Sloutsker’s legal team obtained crucial evidence via third parties and the judge found that the assets comprised “the  family home in London valued at £45m or thereabouts and…… subject to borrowing of £27m or £28m, funds in Reyl Bank in Switzerland, some £4m, a family home in Moscow valued at £22m or thereabouts, a development site in Moscow to which a figure of £150m has been given, investments in US private equity in order of £17m and art of various sorts valued at around £4m”.

It was shown that Mr Sloutsker used offshore companies to distance himself from his assets and having divested himself of strict legal ownership felt no obligation to give any disclosure of the company or the assets within it.  He also used trust structures to the same effect including in respect of the family home which the judge concluded was “a structure convenient to use for tax and creditors but not to inhibit, restrict or affect Mr Sloutsker’s full beneficial use of the funds or the properties acquired with those funds.”

In further attempts to put assets out of reach of his wife, Mr Sloutsker purported to gift the art and contents of the family home to his adult son from his first marriage, Mikhail Sloutsker.  The judge found that Mr Sloutsker “was dishonest and has been dishonest when he tells me this” and that “Mikhail’s evidence …. about the art … was full of contradiction and obfuscation”.

Outcome

The judge ordered Mr Sloutsker to pay £25m to his wife and to pay arrears of maintenance and legal fees of over £1m by 11 September 2025. He also ordered Mr Sloutsker to pay child maintenance of £10,000 per month for each of his daughters and to pay for their holidays and school fees.

David Allison said “As a firm, we try to keep family matters away from the public domain wherever possible, but this case required the full force of the law. 

It is not possible, nor should it be possible, for a person to absolve themselves of all responsibilities towards their family simply because they have divorced.  The English Family Courts are clear that one spouse should not move forward in luxury whilst the other is left lacking, and divorce does not sever parental obligations.

Unfortunately, Mr Sloutsker’s obstructive behaviour continued after trial until his death in late September – neither he nor his estate has paid a penny to his former wife and prior to his death he disappeared, cutting off all contact with his young children.  Mikhail Sloutsker has refused to divulge anything about a Will which might benefit the young children who have been left in dire financial need.  The fight against the estate and anyone who has benefited from it, continues”. 

Alexis Campbell KC, who led the cross examination said “This case illustrates how the English courts are not impressed by billionaires who say they have nothing. Money and influence will not protect dishonest litigants.”

Director David Allison, who led the Family Law in Partnership team in this case, focuses on financial claims on divorce, particularly those with an international element. His clients include business owners, entrepreneurs, bankers, other lawyers and their partners. David has a strategic approach to litigation that achieves results. You can find out more about David and his practice here.

The case has been reported on by The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph and The Daily Mail,