Case No. FD13D04422

1.The applicant, Olga Cazalet, also known as Angela Jilina (“the wife”) is 49. The respondent, Walid Abu-Zalaf (“the husband”) is 65. They have two biological children together, G who is 17 years old and A who is 8 years old. The wife adopted under Russian law a third child, J, who is 7 years old. She adopted him from an orphanage in Sakhalin, an island in the Pacific Ocean north of Japan seized by Russia in 1945.2.The parties began their relationship in July 2001 and married on 1 June 2012 in Hong Kong. They entered into a prenuptial agreement two days prior to the wedding after being given legal advice. 3.They separated in August 2013 and the wife filed a divorce petition on 12 September 2013 on the ground that the husband had behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him and that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. It included some serious allegations of physical abuse. The cause was not defended. On 26 September 2013 the wife filed a statement endorsed with a statement of truth in proof of her petition. On 17 October 2013 the court certified pursuant to FPR r.7.20(2)(a) that it was satisfied that the allegations of conduct were true; that the wife could not reasonably be expected to live with the husband as a consequence; and that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. Decree nisi was pronounced on 15 November 2013. In the usual way that the decree says on its face that the court was satisfied that the husband had behaved in such a way that the wife could not reasonably be expected to live with him; that the marriage had broken down irretrievably; and that it should be dissolved unless “sufficient cause” be shown to the court within six weeks.4.The wife issued financial proceedings at the same time as the divorce petition, including for maintenance pending suit, on 17 September 2013. The husband issued an application for Notice to Show Cause dated 23 October 2013 to uphold the terms of the parties’ prenuptial agreement. The wife’s application for maintenance pending suit was heard by me on 10 December 2013. My judgment is reported as BN v MA [2013] EWHC 4250 (Fam). I observe in passing, to my embarrassment, that it was heavily anonymised, but issued with no rubric. Therefore, without the risk of sanction, anyone could have identified the parties in a news report. It illustrates just how absurd, obscure and contradictory the law is about the reportability of judgments issued anonymously.5.On 5 June 2014, the parties’ financial claims against one another were concluded on the basis of their prenuptial agreement which is recorded in an order of the same date. 6.The wife states that in or around November 2014, the parties reconciled and that pursuant to this, the husband treated J as a child of the family, providing full financial support for him. She states that the husband was fully supportive of and participated in the adoption process. The husband’s position was that he did not adopt J nor treated him as a child of the family. However, on the final day of the hearing, following the completion of oral evidence, and just before final submissions began, Mr Molyneux KC on behalf of the husband conceded that J was a child of the family.7.The wife has never sought to make the decree absolute. Similarly, until he made his application on 14 January 2022 the husband never sought to make the decree absolute.8.Before me is the wife’s application:i)to rescind the decree nisi pronounced on 15 November 2013, and consequentially ii)to dismiss the divorce petition on 12 September 2013 and to set aside the final financial order of 5 June 2014If these orders were made it would be the wife’s intention immediately to file a fresh divorce application as she positively avers that at the present time marriage has irretrievably broken down.9.The husband in response to the wife’s application filed an application for the decree nisi to be made absolute on 14 January 2022. He also seeks a cost order against the wife.10.The wife’s position is superficially curious and the facts of this case are very unlikely to be repeated in the future. One might ask: why does it matter whether she is divorced pursuant to the 15 November 2013 decree, or pursuant to a divorce order yet to be made? The answer is that the prenuptial agreement provides for increasing levels of provision to be made to the wife depending on the length of the marriage (which is to be measured in full years from the date of the ceremony to the date of separation). 11.The financial remedy order of 5 June 2014 applied the level of provision in the prenuptial agreement for a marriage of under two years. If the decree is set aside and this marriage is treated as having lasted for eight years then the level of provision is increased quite substantially both in respect of free capital, capital in trust and spousal periodical payments. I calculate that the agreement would give the wife an extra £1.7m housing capital (to be held on trust for her benefit during her lifetime while she remains single) on top of the £2m such housing capital in trust already provided; a lump sum of £250,000; and additional spousal maintenance of around £13,500 per annum, on top of the existing maintenance now standing, with indexation, at £123,000 per annum.12.This then is the reason for the wife’s application. It is not to proclaim to the world the true facts as she now says that they are. It is not about correcting a false finding as to her status. It is not about correcting a public injustice. It is about money, and only about money.13.In pursuit of her application, she has incurred costs of £244,000; the husband’s figure is £164,000, an aggregate of £408,000. 14.The wife’s case is that in November 2014 the parties reconciled. This “reconciliation” lasted until March 2020. The wife accepted that during this period their relationship was overwhelmingly unhealthy and damaging. However, she argues that there was a significant difference to the quality of their prior relationship in that there was no physical violence.15.The husband’s case is that while a relationship of sorts was rekindled, it was not a marital reconciliation in any shape or form but was a repetition of the toxic, damaging and thoroughly unhealthy relationship that had led to the decree nisi. He says that the court rightly found in 2013 that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. And he argues that such breakdown was not “retrieved” when the parties resumed a relationship in 2014.