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.