The world capital of divorces

It is profitable for the wives of the rich to get divorced in the UK

87-year-old Sir Frederick Barclay, who created a business imperial of 8 billion pounds from scratch (together with his deceased twin brother), including the largest right-winged newspaper Telegraph, can be sent to the trial after he did not pay the first fees for the divorce of the divorce (50 million pounds) court of London. A public hearing in the case of disrespect for the court will be held at the beginning of this year. So London proves the appropriateness of the recently assigned press with the status of the “world capital of divorces”.

The English courts are known for decisions about the relatively equal division of property, regardless of who was the main creator of the state in marriage. Despite the tremendous legal costs and the need to wait for a decision for years, British “divorce business tourism” is a completely involved term. Those who have contact with the UK, even if they divorced abroad, may apply for permission to consider their case in English courts. Until the very recent time, the fame of the most expensive divorce was held by the Russians.

In April of this year, an important change for the "tourism" of this kind will be held. Married couples and civil partners will be able to be divorced without the filing of accusations of one or both parties. Previously, the parties should have proved an irrevocable break in relations as a result of marital treason, unreasonable behavior, “desertion”, etc. Now the divorce will become easier.

But, like much in recent years, the success of the English legal industry rests “on the word on the letter b” - the British political elite now often deliberately avoids the mentions of Brexit - the topics that divided the nation into two camps five years ago.

The idea of ​​British Prime Minister Boris Johnson “to have a cake and eat it” (with such a dream he loved to compare the country's exit from the European Union), it seems that he does not find a response from continental neighbors. A frivolous comparison is now often recalled to the premiere.

London City was forced to come to terms with the fact that he would not be allowed into the EU. Economists and business calculate losses from the man -made loss of the European market and make gloomy forecasts.

Cargoers adapt to additional paper work and red tape. Musicians and show business, which brought the country's economy billions of pounds, ask the government to provide a special visa regime for music rounds to Europe. And now, it seems, another “chicken that has carried gold eggs” - English lawyers will have to get used to a new life.

London courts are a favorite world center (according to some estimates, the second after the American) for consideration of commercial disputes. Before Pandemia and Brexit, the British economy introduced the legal services market, according to the KPMG report ( one of the main world audit companies included in the so -called large four. - Ed. ), Up to 60 billion pounds a year. Labor productivity in the industry grew (by 17% from 2013 to 2018), it has a steady positive balance (last year it amounted to 5.6 billion pounds). The British are proud that while the Germans produce cars, and the French are wine, they argue about the subparagraphs of laws. This growing industry with a historically established competitive advantage is now under threat.

After the transition period stipulated by the UK withdrawal from the EU, since January 2021, Britain has automatically been outside the Lugansk Convention (since 2007 has been operating between the EU members and the three countries of the European Free Trade Association - Iceland, Norway and Switzerland).

The Convention determines which national courts can consider cross -border civil and commercial court cases, and ensures a simple mutual recognition of decisions. It covers the region that important for citizens and business as contracts, insurance, labor and family law.

The government of Johnson submitted an application for re -attachment to the Lugansk Convention as a third party in April 2020, but the European Commission is in no hurry to share the “cherry from the cake” (as Europeans once formulated their negotiation position) and so far blocks a positive decision.

“Participation in the Lugansk Convention fundamentally requires a close connection with a single market, compliance with the EU norms and the adoption of the hierarchy of European courts. As we know, the key element of the Brexit transaction is that Great Britain is no longer part of a single market precisely because of the British refusal to apply European law on its territory, ”Adrian Vasquez Lasara, and the chairman of the Committee on the Legal Association of the European Parliament, explains the position.

It is equally important that the Convention is based on a high level of mutual trust between the parties, and before that it is very far away. The British ruling party of conservatives and its winning wing - radical supporters of Brexit - use victorious rhetoric in relations with Europe, declare the rate on the Pacific partnership and officially threaten to suspend some of the recently concluded agreements with the EU, recognizing them “non -viable”. This, in particular, is a special customs regime zone in Northern Ireland and the exclusion of the supervisory role of the European Court when considering problems. It is characteristic that the British Chamber of Commerce recently called for both sides to reduce rhetoric and "stop behaving as if they were fighting." This is a signal that trade with the UK becomes risky, especially with small British enterprises, quotes BBC businessmen.

The decision of the continental Europe will be important, but “will not lead to a significant slowdown in the work of our law firms,” the Brekiter magazine Flagship Brekiter is optimistic. But many believe that this will complicate London firms selling services in the world market and will squeeze British lawyers in favor of competitors in Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt. “If the UK cannot join the Convention, the company will prefer to conduct court cases in other countries,” writes Faynenshl Times. The trial of commercial disputes is not in one local court, but at the same time in the courts of various jurisdictions may be “inaccessible to everyone except the deepest pockets,” the newspaper of the President of the Legal Society of England and Wales Stephanie Boyce quotes.

Experts believe that due to a dispute with the EU, the special role of Great Britain in the divorce proceedings will also suffer,

And recently received by her from the press, the status of "divorce business country". The inaccessibility of the Lugansk Convention will lead to serious complications in resolving divorce proceedings and awarding alimony, lawyers warn. No matter how anyone evaluates the motives of the European Commission, many believe that this will bring "painful and expensive legal uncertainty in affairs about the decay of families."

The English judicial adversarial divorce proceedings have always been elite. According to lawyers working in business, it costs from £ 100,000 and more for each side. In addition, this is a long business - from 14 months to many years - and painful. How lawyers joke, "Barristers are the least qualified and most expensive psychologists you can find."

But perhaps for “deep pockets”, especially Russian, the most important thing is that the UK has bilateral agreements on the mutual execution of court decisions with most offshore zones: Gernsi, Jersey, the island of Maine, the Bahami Islands, the British Vistersian Islands, the Kaymanov Islands, Gibraltar, Beliz, Seichelian Islands, etc.

Soon the Supreme Court will decide whether to consider the appeal of Vladimir Potanin, who was faced with a lawsuit of divorce, comparable to the divorces of Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates. (The wife of Bezos Mackenzie Scott got 4% of the Amazon shares estimated at $ 39 billion. Gates Melinda French, after the divorce, got rich for $ 5.7 billion.) Natalya Potanina demands 50% of the cost of his share in the Norilsk Nickel GMC and a share in another property. The amount, according to the Bloomberg agency, can amount to $ 7.7 billion.

The Potanins got married in 1983 by very young, and divorced in 2014. Russian courts awarded Natalya Potanina about $ 41.5 million as compensation (and she received twice as much, the party’s side claims). Since the end of 2014, Natalia has been living in her own house in England, which gave her the opportunity to dispute alimony in Britain. In a high court in 2019, she claimed that the amount awarded to her did not correspond to her “reasonable needs”, but the lawsuit was blocked on the grounds that the couple had no connection with the UK. After another and a half, the judges of the court of appeal canceled this decision and allowed Natalya Potanina to file a lawsuit in the high court of London. Now Vladimir Potanin is waiting for an answer whether judges will be given to appeal this decision in the Supreme Court.

Until the very recent time, the Russians belonged to the largest English decision on the payment of 450 million pounds. In 2016, this amount was suited by the ex -wife of the Russian billionaire Farhad Akhmedov (41.5% of his condition). True, on the eve of the New Year, the ruler of Dubai Sheikh Muhammad Bin Rashid al-Maktum ordered to pay their ex-wife Princess Haye Al-Hussein 500 million pounds, so she led the leaders in the sum of alimony.

However, it was not possible to fully get their money in the former “record holder”. For six years, Tatyana Akhmedova has been conducting litigation around the world, including against a number of offshore trusts, and in the high court of London against his eldest son Temur, claiming that his son helps his father hide money from her. In April 2021, Judge Gwinnet Nowles made a decision in favor of Ahmedova, emphasizing that the ex -wife and mother became a “victim of a series of schemes developed to lead every penny out of her husband’s wealth outside her reach.” She ordered Temur Akhmedov to pay 75.9 million pounds to her mother. Having referred to the beginning of Leo Tolstoy’s novel “Anna Karenina”, Noules said in his decision that “every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way” and added: “The Ahmedov family is one of the most unfortunate that ever appeared in the hall of my court.”

Ordinary English citizens argue about all this detached. Here are a few comments of the readers of the judicial chronicle. “Such processes strengthen the idea of ​​using English property and the law to launder money.” “This is a tricky move, perhaps that allows Potanin to take half of his condition directly“ from under the nose of Putin ”and get“ clean ”in the UK.” “London is Mecca for divorces, and it makes me like a Londoner“ dirty ”. “The English court, it turns out, is now available to all divorces, regardless of the place of residence, marriage contract or nationality.” "Well, the court receives its percentage of the amount of the claim." "I just hope they all have good security services ..."

The final decision to join the UK to the Lugansk Convention will be made by EU member countries at a meeting of the European Council, but the press evaluates the chances as low.

The Europeans suggested that the UK apply for an accession to the Hague Convention of 2019 on recognition and execution of foreign court decisions on civil and commercial cases, but today only five states signed it (Israel, Costa Rika, Ukraine, Uruguay) and has not yet ratified any of them. In addition, as noted by various experts in the field of law, the Hague Convention is much less comprehensive than Lugansk, it admit a parallel consideration of court cases in various jurisdictions and do not provide for the execution of decisions of one jurisdiction in another.

“The simplest solution would be as obvious as joining an agreement to the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) * with all the ensuing consequences,” European partners advise. And it does not look like a mockery or a joke.

* The European Free Trade Association was created in 1960 as an alternative for European states that could not or did not want to join the European economic community (now the European Union) and considered plans to create a European common market too ambitious. The initial members were the UK, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland and Portugal.