Michael James Augousti v Amrit Kaur Matharu
[2023] EWHC 1900 (Fam)
Sofia Bogolyubova v Gennadiy Bogolyubov & Anor
18 May 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 547
Court of Appeal
A couple tried to finalize their divorce settlement despite a huge lawsuit against the husband. A judge paused the divorce until the lawsuit finished because the outcome could wipe out the husband's assets, making the divorce settlement impossible to honor. The appeal court agreed with the judge's decision to wait.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against a case management order refusing approval of a consent order in financial remedy proceedings between Sofia Bogolyubova (wife) and Gennadiy Bogolyubov (husband).
- •Husband is a co-defendant in Chancery proceedings facing potential liability exceeding $4.2bn.
- •Parties had a pre-nuptial agreement, later replaced by a separation agreement for a minimum of £95m.
- •Husband has a worldwide freezing order against him by PrivatBank.
- •Proposed consent order includes a conditionality clause, stating implementation depends on variation or discharge of the freezing order.
- •Judge refused to approve the consent order, adjourning the financial remedy proceedings until the Chancery proceedings are resolved.
- •Wife appealed, arguing the judge improperly prioritized PrivatBank's claim over hers.
Legal Principles
Court's power to approve consent orders in financial remedy proceedings.
Section 33A MCA 1973
Court's consideration of factors under section 25 MCA 1973 when determining financial remedies.
Section 25 MCA 1973
Weight given to nuptial agreements (Radmacher principles).
Granatino v Radmacher [2010] UKSC 42
Court's approach to case management decisions.
H-D-H (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 1192
Balancing competing claims in financial remedy proceedings involving criminal confiscation orders.
HM Customs and Excise v MCA & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 1039, CPS v Richards & Richards [2006] EWCA Civ 849, Stodgell v Stodgell [2009] EWCA Civ 243
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
Judge's decision to adjourn was a proper exercise of case management powers, given the uncertainty surrounding the husband's potential liability in the Chancery proceedings. Approving the consent order before resolving this uncertainty would be illogical and potentially unfair.
Appeal regarding costs dismissed.
Judge's summary assessment of costs was a proper exercise of discretion.