

London, for many wealthy individuals, will be the chosen divorce court.
The “race to issue proceedings” is still a relevant consideration when issues concerning domicile or habitual residence remain “grey” – or the parties are an international couple.
What of the race lost? What of the spouse whose divorce in country x has resulted in no financial provision or an inadequate financial outcome which does not enable them to transition to financial independence?
Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (“FMPA”) may come to the rescue in making provision where a marriage is terminated by foreign proceedings which results in financial inadequacy.
The Law Commission Report back, in 1982, began its introduction of the FMPA by recognising the financial hardship that could arise by a foreign divorce in which no financial award was made, or the foreign court had no power to grant financial relief.
The most notable case under Part III was Agbaje, a 2009 Court of Appeal decision which set out the regime for seeking relief and recognised that, although financial hardship and injustice were relevant factors, they were not preconditions to relief.
There have been a number of developments since Agbaje. The concept of a “needs light” basis – where a judge makes a summary assessment rather than carrying out a full-scale analysis – is invariably less generous than a corresponding domestic claim – has become somewhat of a theme.
Most recently in Xanthopoulos -v- Rakshina, a decision of the Court of Appeal in 2024, the court endorsed the approach taken by the trial Judge Sir Jonathan Cohen, of a “needs lights approach”.
The case concerned a 12-year Russian marriage with two children where the wife owned all of the assets, circa £13m, and provided for the husband to receive a relatively modest award – £1m housing fund for life, £100,000 lump sum and £460,000 in capitalised maintenance.
This needs light approach perhaps is a reflection of the recognition by the English courts as to the problems created by “divorce tourism”.
Sometimes the party’s connection with England is “recent and modest”; a description given by Cohen J in the 2024 decision in Potanina v Potanin.
It is worth investigating, in such cases, what the real connection with our jurisdiction is – how the long parties have lived here, where is their financial centre of interest and where do they work?