Case No. FD19F00071

39.W says that she attempted to serve her divorce petition on H in England and that he evaded service. I am not satisfied that H did seek to avoid service. After all, W could always have served H at the birthday celebrations in London or in Majorca when they were there if that is what she wanted to happen. My surmise is that the proceedings were not served because there seemed no great urgency, there was no definite decision to divorce, and because W’s main concern was to have her petition ready to serve in the event that she got wind that H was issuing in Russia. 40.In December 2017 H issued his divorce petition in Russia. In a series of letters to the Russian court W sought to have the proceedings adjourned to attempt a reconciliation. She accepts that this was a ruse as she was trying to win a jurisdiction race. On 21 March 2018 her petition was served on H by email, but it was too late as the following day the marriage was dissolved in Russia. W accepted defeat and her English petition was dismissed by consent. 41.In September 2018 H issued his application for financial relief in the Russian courts but he in turn did not immediately serve W. However, he instructed a London firm of solicitors to seek an undertaking from W that she should not sell the Majorca property. Through her then solicitors, W offered assurances to preserve the proceeds of sale of the Majorca villa within its holding company save for the payment of her housing expenses in London, various other expenditure including S’s school fees, payment of her legal costs and an allowance of £15k pm. Her letter did not receive a reply. 42.It is not clear to me exactly when W became aware of the financial proceedings that H had issued in Russia, although it was plainly prior to 23 January 2019, when she was represented. But, W must have been aware that H might issue such proceedings and I am satisfied that she entered into the transactions to which I now refer, in an attempt to remove from the distributive powers of the Russian court the assets held by her outside England. i)On 23 October 2018 she gifted to her mother the small flat in St Petersburg which S’s father had bought for W. The flat is occupied by W’s sister and for some of the year by W’s parents. H spent some significant sums of money (he says $20-30k), on refurbishing the flat. But bearing in mind that it is of modest value, now put at £60k, and was owned by W well before she ever met H, I cannot regard the asset as being of any significance to what I have to determine. ii)In late December 2018 W sold the Majorca property for €3.53m net. W did not tell H of what she was doing but he learnt of what she had in mind from the gardener. He did not seek to block the sale. He had no reason to think that if she did sell the property, she would not comply with the offer that she had made in solicitors’ correspondence. However, what she did instead, was rather than keeping the money within the company she transferred it in tranches to her own private account. iii)In March 2019 W purported to sell the MM shop to an employee for €49k inclusive of stock. H suggests that this sale is a sham. The purchaser has not paid the price and bearing in mind the very substantial sums invested in the business, H says that the only explanation of the very modest price must be that it remains the property of W. W is now engaged in legal proceedings against the purchaser. I regard W’s business acumen as being very limited and I accept that the project has been a financial disaster (my words, not hers) and that W no longer has an interest in it. 43.On the other hand, in February 2019 H bought a replacement property in Cyprus in his own name which he immediately declared to be held by him on trust for his son ND. He accepted that this transaction would give the observer every cause to think that H was doing exactly what he accuses W of doing, namely seeking to divest ownership before the Russian proceedings were heard. 44.The Russian proceedings were heard in July 2019. The effect of them was as follows: i)The London matrimonial home and the shares in the Majorcan company which held the Majorcan property were to be divided 50/50. Of course by that time a significant part of the Majorca proceeds had been spent. ii)H’s claim on the St Petersburg flat and for the return of the loan of £1m (investors visa) plus interest of over £280k (as at that date) was dismissed. iii)Some other minor assets were to be divided equally. iv)No form of continuing provision, whether by way of maintenance or otherwise, was provided for W or S. 45.As I understand to be normally the case in Russia, no account was taken of assets held in entities not owned by the parties so that H’s business activities and all his funds which had been transferred into the Foundation did not enter the equation. H calculates that the effect of the order was to leave W with about £4m, being half the value of the London home and half the Majorca home, on the (false) assumption that the proceeds had been preserved. 46.H has obtained permission to appeal the order dismissing the application for the return of the investor visa money by way of a retrial. That retrial is to be heard very shortly. If he succeeds, the value of W’s award from the Russian court will reduce by some £1.3m plus penalties accruing at 0.1% per day. 47.W’s response to the Russian order was to apply for permission under Part III, which I granted.