The authors act for Alona Sloutsker in relation to her divorce from Vladimir Sloutsker, a Russian businessman and former senator of the Russian parliament. Unusually for the family court, judgment in this case was published without anonymity, turning what could have remained a private family matter into a public affair, covered by the international press. As a firm, we try to keep family matters away from the public domain wherever possible, but in this case it was necessary to utilise the Courts and for Alona Sloutsker to request that the matter was reported without anonymity. We explain why and share key learnings to help others.
Background
Following Mrs Sloutsker’s decision to divorce, Mr Sloutsker started pleading poverty; he suggested that he was suffering severe financial hardship as a result of his assets in Russia being stolen. It was therefore necessary to involve the Courts. Ultimately, the Judge rejected Mr Sloutsker’s presentation, regarding him as a 'dishonest witness' and found that the couple had lived a 'lifestyle consistent with extreme wealth'. He found that 'at a minimum' Mr Sloutsker had resources exceeding £200 million. He awarded Mrs Sloutsker around £26 million to meet her needs and those of the children.
Mrs Sloutsker subsequently applied to have the judgment in the case made public. In recent years, there has been a cultural shift towards greater transparency in the family courts but generally when a judgment of the family court is published, the details are anonymised. In reaching his decision to publish the judgment, the Judge referred to the following factors:
ï‚· Mr Sloutsker had engaged in serious and repeated litigation misconduct; he had breached almost every order requiring him to file evidence and did not comply with his financial disclosure obligations.
ï‚· Mr Sloutsker was a prominent public figure and much information about his life and business was already in the public domain; his divorce from his previous wife had garnered publicity and Mr Sloutsker had also brought a public libel action in the High Court.
ï‚· Any openly accessible judgment might assist Mrs Sloutsker with enforcing her award.
ï‚· Although there was a risk of harm to the parties’ children (by way of exposure to criticism of their father online), Mrs Sloutsker could be trusted to minimise the risk of harm as far as possible. If publication helped with enforcement, there would be a financial and welfare benefit to the children.
Following its publication, the case has been picked up by mainstream media outlets. The adverse publicity for Mr Sloutsker should serve as a stark reminder for couples using the family court, that Judges will not tolerate dishonesty and litigation misconduct.
Of course, Mr Sloutsker is not the only high-profile party to suffer the punitive consequences of a published judgment. In 2021, Sir Frederick Barclay was ordered to pay Lady Hiroko Barclay sums totalling £100m following their divorce. During the court proceedings, Sir Frederick Barclay disobeyed court orders. He failed to produce documents and answer questions, and he also sold his luxury yacht and applied the monies raised for his own use. The judge in that case, Mr Justice Cohen, said that Sir Frederick Barclay’s misconduct 'should not be allowed to pass completely under the radar'. He therefore revealed certain details of the parties’ financial dispute and Sir Frederick’s misbehaviour in a judgment which was made public.
In Ibtissam Ali Christoforou v Christakis Christoforou [2020] EWHC 43 (Fam), the multi-millionaire Husband was ordered to transfer to his Wife a small estate of land in Cyprus upon which stood mature olive trees. The Wife alleged that the Husband cut down the olive trees prior to the transfer of land. The Husband denied this. Following the admission of drone footage showing the olive trees in situ prior to the transfer and expert evidence from a chartered arboriculturist, the Court found that the Husband was indeed responsible. As a result of the Husband’s dishonesty and his deliberate attempts to mislead the Court, the Court permitted publication of the judgment on the issue of liability for the removal of the trees.
Mr Sloutsker died in September 2025 shortly following the judgment.
Top tips if you think your partner is being dishonest about their finances
1. The first step is undertaking a close analysis of any bank statements they have disclosed. As well as looking for unusual or opaque transactions, it is important to consider whether any anticipated expenditure is missing. This could indicate an undisclosed bank account. Your spouse can be ordered to answer questions on the content of their bank statements.
2. If the wealth that your spouse has disclosed, is inconsistent with the lifestyle you have enjoyed during the marriage, it may be appropriate to ask the court to draw 'adverse inference'. This ultimately means that in dividing up the assets, the court could assume that your spouse has access to undisclosed assets and give you more of the visible assets and assets found to exist.
3. If your spouse refuses to give disclosure altogether, certain applications can be made to potentially have them committed to prison for contempt of court. Often the threat of this alone will force a reluctant litigant to engage.
4. It is also possible to apply for Third-Party Disclosure Orders, meaning that banks or other institutions can be forced to give disclosure of your spouse’s accounts and assets. In Sloutsker v Sloutsker, the court was able to draw conclusions about Mr Sloutsker’s wealth from information his accountants had provided to a mortgage company.
Advisory is Tatler’s trusted network of influential private client experts, all at the pinnacle of their profession. From Family Law to Property, our hub of elite practitioners have the gilt-edged expertise necessary to advise UHNW and HNW individuals. Find out more about FLiP here.
