Natalia Nikolaevna Potanina v Vladimir Olegovich Potanin (No3) (Video Evidence from Abroad)

In family proceedings, the Hague Convention 1970 is not a mandatory or exclusive route for obtaining evidence from abroad. Where a party or witness voluntarily gives direct evidence by video-link to the court in England and Wales, the court may ordinarily proceed without a Letter of Request or foreign-state permission. The relevant question is governed principally by domestic procedure and the Family Procedure Rules 2010. A possible breach of foreign legal or procedural rules does not ordinarily, by itself, require refusal of the evidence, although compulsion, formal identification, contempt, perjury or a specific foreign-law prohibition may make the Convention procedure appropriate. The approach in Nare and Agbabiaka does not govern family proceedings.

The wife’s ongoing application under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 concerned financial remedies following an overseas divorce. The husband, who was unable to travel to the United Kingdom because of sanctions, volunteered to give evidence from Russia by video-link provided that doing so was lawful.

He applied for Letters of Request under Article 1 of the Hague Convention 1970 in case Russian permission was required. The wife argued that the application was unnecessary. The central issue was whether the court could receive direct evidence by video-link from abroad without a Letter of Request or the foreign State’s permission.

The application for Letters of Request was refused. The husband’s oral evidence at the final hearing was directed to be given directly by remote video-link.

1. Nature of the evidence. The court distinguished indirect evidence, where the competent authority in the requested State takes evidence under a Letter of Request, from direct evidence, where a witness or party abroad gives evidence remotely to the court conducting the hearing in England and Wales. The present case concerned the direct method.
2. Convention framework. Article 1 of the Hague Convention 1970 uses permissive language. Article 27(c) preserves the ability to use methods of taking evidence permitted by internal law or practice. The Convention is therefore not mandatory in family proceedings. Domestic procedural matters are governed by the lex fori. The court relied on Brannigan v Davison [1997] AC 238, Morris v Banque Arabe [2001] ILPR 37 and Raza v SS for Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 29.
3. Family proceedings. The approaches in Nare (evidence by electronic means) Zimbabwe [2011] UKUT 00443 (IAC) and Agbabiaka (evidence from abroad, Nare guidance) Nigeria [2021] UKUT 286 (IAC) did not govern family proceedings. The court agreed with Newcastle CC v JK [2025] EWHC 1767 (Fam). Taking direct evidence from a voluntary witness abroad without foreign permission was not unlawful.
4. Limits. Where a witness volunteers, the court may ordinarily proceed on that agreement and assume that the witness will not willingly expose himself or herself to foreign civil or criminal sanctions. A possible contravention of foreign legal or procedural rules is not ordinarily, by itself, a reason to refuse the evidence. Compulsion, formal identification, contempt, perjury or other case-specific disadvantages may make the Convention procedure appropriate.
5. Application. The husband volunteered to give evidence. There was no evidence that Russian law prohibited him from doing so and therefore no doubt requiring an inquiry under PD22A. The Convention procedure could introduce further delay into proceedings already ongoing for eight years. The decision was based solely on the legal analysis and made no finding about the husband’s alleged influence in Russia. The order accordingly declined to issue Letters of Request and directed direct video-link evidence.

This was a first-instance case-management decision. The judgment records the earlier procedural history of the wife’s Part III application:

1. High Court (Family Division). Cohen J gave the first-instance decision in Potanin v Potanina [2019] EWHC 2956 (Fam) , reported at [2020] Fam 189.
2. Court of Appeal. The decision of Cohen J was overturned in Potanin v Potanina [2021] EWCA Civ 702 , reported at [2022] Fam 23.
3. Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal decision was overturned in Potanina v Potanin [2024] UKSC 3 , reported at [2024] AC 1063 , and the matter was remitted to the Court of Appeal.
4. Court of Appeal. The first-instance decision was overturned and the wife was granted leave to bring the Part III application in Potanina v Potanin [2025] EWCA Civ 1136 , reported at [2026] 2 WLR 352.
5. High Court (Family Division). The present judgment determined the Letters of Request application.