H v W
[2023] EWFC 120 (B)
Natalia Nikolaeva Rotenberg v Arkady Romanovich Rotenberg & Ors
15 July 2024
[2024] EWFC 185
Family Court
A long court battle over a house ended. The wife didn't follow court orders, so the judge ruled against her. The husband got to keep the house because the wife and kids moved away, breaking their agreement. The wife has to pay a lot of money for the court costs.
Key Facts
- •Long-running financial remedy proceedings (since 2013) between Natalia Nikolaeva Rotenberg (W) and Arkady Romanovich Rotenberg (H).
- •Dispute centers around a Surrey property ('the property') purchased by Ravendark Holdings Ltd (a BVI company) funded by a loan from Olpon Investments Ltd (owned by H).
- •W failed to comply with court orders, including an Unless Order, and did not participate in the litigation since mid-2022.
- •A 2016 order by Moor J awarded W the property, other properties, and financial payments, contingent on W and children remaining in the UK until December 2024.
- •W and the children left the UK in 2018 and W remarried and obtained Armenian citizenship.
- •H applied for variation/discharge of the 2016 order under the Thwaite jurisdiction, arguing a significant change in circumstances.
- •The Court of Appeal overturned Moor J's finding of a resulting trust regarding the property in 2021, remitting for a rehearing on constructive trust.
Legal Principles
Unless Order and Relief from Sanctions
FPR 2010 r4.5
Thwaite Jurisdiction
SR v HR [2018] EWHC 606 (Fam)
Resulting Trust and Constructive Trust
Court of Appeal judgment dated 10 November 2021
Variation of Executory Orders
Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court
Outcomes
W's applications for assignment of the loan and declaration of H's beneficial ownership of the property were dismissed due to non-compliance with the Unless Order.
W failed to comply with court orders and did not apply for relief from sanctions.
H's Thwaite application to discharge the 2016 order's provisions regarding the property and other properties was granted.
Significant change in circumstances: W and children left the UK, undermining the fundamental condition of the 2016 order. W failed to engage with the application or provide evidence.
Ravendark's application for a declaration of sole beneficial ownership of the property was refused.
The court declined to make a merits-based adjudication on ownership; striking out W's claim was sufficient, given her non-compliance.
W's application to strike out H's Thwaite application was struck out.
Consistent with the dismissal of W's claims due to non-compliance.
Costs orders were made against W in favour of H and Olpon on an indemnity basis, and in favour of Ravendark for 50% of their costs on a standard basis.
W's unreasonable conduct and non-engagement in the proceedings justified the costs awards.