Court of Appeal Modifies Financial Remedies Order in International Divorce Case to Ensure Fair Distribution and Consideration of Post-Nuptial Agreement

Citation: [2024] EWCA Civ 84
Judgment on


The case of Lazaros Panagiotis Xanthopoulos v Alla Aleksandrovna Rakshina ([2024] EWCA Civ 84) involves an appeal against a financial remedies order made under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. This complex case, brought before the Court of Appeal, touches on international divorce proceedings, the impact of a post-nuptial agreement on financial settlements, and considerations regarding litigation misconduct in the calculation of financial remedies. The judgment presents a nuanced view into the intersection of family law and cross-jurisdictional considerations in the context of financial settlements following foreign divorce.

Key Facts

The appellant (husband) and the respondent (wife) underwent divorce proceedings in Russia, and subsequently, the husband sought financial relief in England under Part III. The case grappled with the valuation of the wife’s shareholding in a family business and the husband’s need for financial relief, factoring in the existence of a post-nuptial agreement that limited his entitlement to assets. The original trial was characterized by the husband’s persistent litigation misconduct and non-compliance with court orders, resulting in significant legal costs.

The trial judge opted for a ‘needs-light’ approach in determining the financial settlement. This included provisions for housing in Greece, a life interest in the property purchased by the wife, term maintenance for the husband, and various considerations of the couple’s post-nuptial agreement and the husband’s litigation conduct. The husband contended that this order was unfair and did not meet his needs, leading to the current appeal.

Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984

The case pivots on applications for financial relief following an overseas divorce under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. The court, in legitimizing financial remedies in the UK post-foreign divorce, referenced Agbaje v Agbaje which outlines the framework for alleviating “no or no adequate financial provision.”

Post-Nuptial Agreement

The court referenced Radmacher v Granatino to assess the weight and fairness of the post-nuptial agreement. Despite the lack of financial disclosure and legal advice, the agreement was found to be entered into freely by both parties, holding substantial weight in determining the financial remedy.

Conduct and Litigation Misconduct

The husband’s litigation conduct was examined in light of Rothschild v De Souza, permitting enforcement if one party’s conduct had influenced the depletion of matrimonial assets, affecting the outcome of fair distribution. The husband’s non-compliance and excessive legal costs were factored into the financial remedy, affecting the quantum of his award.

The overspend by the husband on legal costs, as per the principles discussed in Azarmi-Movafagh v Bassiri-Dezfouli, was not remedied by the award; the wife was not responsible for the husband’s overspend on LSPOs, reflecting principles of fairness and the autonomy of litigants.


The Court of Appeal held that the husband was not left in a ‘predicament of real need’ and that a ‘needs-light’ award was appropriate. However, it modified the original order in light of the following:

  • The housing provision was increased from €600,000 to £1 million to enable the husband to purchase property either in Greece or in London.
  • The furnishing fund was increased to £75,000.
  • The periodical payments for maintenance were set at £115,000 per annum for four years, recalculated from the new judgment date.
  • The costs orders totaling approximately £1.04 million made against the husband were not to be enforced without leave of the court, and the wife was not responsible for the husband’s legal overspend.


The judgment in Lazaros Panagiotis Xanthopoulos v Alla Aleksandrovna Rakshina marks a meticulous dissection of financial remedies after an international divorce, wherein agreement terms, litigant conduct, and balance of fairness play significant roles. The outcome illustrates the discretion afforded to courts in ensuring that financial orders not only adequately meet the needs of both parties but also account for individual circumstances and agreement commitments made during the marriage. This case reinforces the need for precise calculation and reasonable distribution of available assets, underpinning the fair and equitable delivery of justice in financial remedy cases post-divorce.

Related Summaries