Sloutsker v Sloutsker & Ors [2025] EWFC 369

Judgment date: 14 August 2025

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2025/369

Garrido J. Successful application by the wife in the Family Court for financial orders against the husband following issues of serious litigation misconduct, resulting trusts, and pre-nuptial agreements.

Background

The application was brought by Mrs Alona Sloutsker, the wife, against the husband, Mr Vladimir Sloutsker, a wealthy businessman with an international asset portfolio. The parties enjoyed a ‘lifestyle consistent with extreme wealth’ during the course of the marriage. H had made a declaration of poverty before the court and accordingly was acting in person. The court allowed special measures for H on account of a diagnosis of stage-four renal carcinoma, in spite of the fact no measures were recommended by any medical practitioner. This illness is also the reason for the extempore nature of the judgment.

Litigation misconduct

The court found repeated breaches of court orders and non-disclosure from H:

• failure to file Form E on time;
• failure to provide full and frank disclosure;
• failure to answer questionnaires;
• failure to provide trust documents;
• providing documents in a manner that did not assist the court (i.e. in Russian without any translation); and
• late, incomplete, and contradictory statements.

As a result of this litigation misconduct, the court concluded that third-party disclosure was necessary, at extensive cost to W.

Assets identified by the court

The judge found H to be a dishonest witness, pointing to asset schedules contradicting his assertions of poverty, undisclosed assets, false claims around ownership of Moscow properties, and use of complex structures to obfuscate his interests while maintaining control.

The court found the main assets to be:

• London family home at roughly £45m with borrowing and arrears between £27m and £28m;
• funds in a REYL Bank Account in Switzerland of around £4m;
• Moscow family home valued at roughly £22.5m;
• Moscow development site valued at £150m;
• US private equity investments of the order of £17m; and
• an art collection valued at around £4m.

These assets were largely evidenced by third-party disclosure of documents signed by H, or on his behalf, prior to the breakdown of the marriage. The court identified assets totalling approximately £214.5m, of which £42m was readily liquid, with valuations inferred from historic documents.

Resulting trust

Following Prest v Petrodel [2013] UKSC 4 the family matrimonial home in London, purchased with funds beneficially owned by H with legal title retained by Roosevelt & Partners (the second respondent) and Magnolia Trust (the trustees of which are the third respondent), was found to be held on resulting trust for H. Accordingly, the total equity was available for the wife’s financial claims.

The Moscow home

H asserted that this property was a rental property, not in his possession, and that he had not owned residential property in Russia since 1991. However, H was later confronted with previous judgments demonstrating his retention of this property following his first divorce. This caused him to alter his position, replying that he had recently lost his interest to a Russian oligarch. The judge held these inconsistencies led to an implausibility, with H being deliberately dishonest.

Pre-nuptial agreement

There was a pre-nuptial agreement between the parties. The court held the agreement to be ‘neither fair nor one that should be upheld’, W evidencing that she was pressured into signing. W did not have proper advice, she had no idea what rights she was giving up and there was no scope for negotiation. Additionally, there was no financial disclosure ahead of this agreement. The agreement was never executed or registered according to Israeli requirements, so would not be valid in Israel either. W was assured by H that it was unenforceable and would not be relied upon. The judge inferred that H recognised the unfairness of the agreement based on the informal offer he later made to W.

Final orders

Child maintenance orders in the sum of £120,000 with £80,000 vacation allowance per child per year until the age of 21 was offered by H. This offer was held to be broadly in line with what W sought, on a needs basis.

W was awarded non-variable lump sums of £25m, plus approximately £750,000 arrears from the legal services payment order, and £274,000 arrears of maintenance pending suit, together with income.

A sale order was made on London family home.