The ex-wife of a Russian oligarch who won Britain’s biggest divorce payout expects to wrack up a £2million legal bill to sue her lawyers, the High Court has heard.
Tatiana Soroka, 52, claims the firm, Payne Hicks Beach (PHB) where Baroness Fiona Shackleton is a partner, missed opportunities to have her former husband Farkhad Akhmedov’s ten-deck floating palace Luna seized in Miami.
She was awarded £453million in what was Britain’s biggest divorce settlement, but Ms Soroka is arguing that with the right information, she could have achieved a ‘better’ settlement and outcome – and is suing the firm at the High Court.
In a newly-published judgement it emerged that the divorcee estimates that she will pay approximately £2 million in legal fees when the full 20-day trial takes place in autumn of next year.
The wealthy divorcee has accused her lawyer Baroness Shackleton of professional negligence and said she was not offered the correct advice when she asked them to ‘explore options’ to have the yacht impounded.
In 2016, PHB represented Ms Soroka in divorce proceedings against her ex-husband Mr Akhmedov, who is an Azerbaijani businessman and former politician in Russia.
Matters soured between Ms Soroka and PHB after the settlement money failed to materialise despite oil and gas tycoon Mr Akhmedov, 68, being ordered to pay up by a judge.
She claims she instructed PHB to chase him for the money and asked the firm to ‘reconsider whether’ they could seize the £200 million yacht. But the lawyers claim this was not the case and she was ‘not interested in impounding the Luna’.
Solicitor and Conservative politician Baroness Shackleton is nicknamed ‘Steel Magnolia’ for her ruthless pursuit of her clients’ interests.
She represented King Charles and Sir Paul McCartney in their divorces – memorably having a jug of water poured over her by Heather Mills after she was awarded just £24million of the £125million she had sought from the former Beatle.
As Britain’s highest-profile divorce lawyer, she has also worked with A-list stars such as Liam Gallagher and Madonna during their expensive and heavily spotlighted splits.
In the new judgement, judge Master Kaye said Mr Akhmedov did not willingly comply with this order, prompting Ms Soroka to ‘take steps’ to enforce it.
Luna was an asset of Mr Akhmedov’s and was docked in Miami, Florida, USA, from January 2017 to May 2017. The vessel was built for former Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich, and has nine decks, two helipads, a pool and a mini-submarine.
The divorcee claimed that she spoke to PHB by telephone on January 23 of that year to tell them that Luna and Mr Akhmedov were in the city and so she wanted to ‘explore options’ there.
She claimed she asked the firm to ‘reconsider whether she might be able to enforce the financial remedy order against the Luna in Miami’.
While she cannot recall ‘exactly’ what she was told on this date, Ms Soroka said she had the ‘clear impression that enforcing the financial remedy order in Florida whilst the Luna was there was not an option open to her’.
However, the firm’s version of events differed.
They said that Ms Soroka gave ‘express instructions’ in early January that she was ‘not interested in impounding the Luna and that those instructions did not change’.
PHB said they were not instructed to obtain advice about the possibility of impounding the Luna in Miami but only about the possibility of arresting Mr Akhmedov.
The firm said they sought advice from a Miami attorney where they were told that arresting Mr Akhmedov was ‘not an option’ but they could seek to enforce the order in Florida if Mr Akhmedov had assets there.
The firm told that attorney that Mr Akhmedov did not have any assets in the country.
In July 2021, Ms Soroka entered into the settlement with Mr Akhmedov in relation to his obligations under the order.
It was reported that they agreed to a private deal that would mean her getting £100 million and art estimated to be worth £50 million.
Lawyers representing Ms Soroka said the firm had acted in breach of the contractual and common law duties of care that it owed to her.
They argued this was done by them ‘wrongly and negligently’ informing the Miami attorney that the oligarch had no assets in the USA when in fact they knew that Luna was docked in Miami.
And they said the firm ‘negligently led [Ms Soroka] to understand that enforcing the [financial remedy order] in Florida while the Luna was in Miami was not option that was open to her’.
The firm denied any breach of duty and said that if they were to have obtain advice on seizing Luna, then that in itself would have been a breach of confidentiality as they had ‘not been instructed’ to do so.
They said the ‘entire case is founded on the false premise that [Ms Soroka] instructed the [firm] to obtain the said advice’.
The court heard there has been delays in the case, which is now set to take place in autumn of next year, at the earliest.
‘This is a stale claim relating to historic events,’ Master Kaye said.
Ms Soroka has indicated to the firm that she ‘wanted to attempt to settle’ but PHB told her that ‘they were not yet willing to engage’ with this prospect.
The High Court ruled that the trial must be heard in one sitting, rather than split across two dates – which was preferred by Ms Soroka.
The judge said the divorcee hadn’t ‘really grappled with the cost benefits or disadvantages of two trials’.
Master Kaye said: ‘[Ms Soroka] considers she will incur approximately £2m for the full 20-day trial.
‘There is no breakdown for that figure but an explanation of the complexity of the causation and loss issues and the extensive disclosure and expert evidence needed.
‘It seemed to me that when considering the rates and the work which [Ms Soroka] says has to be undertaken for the full trial that the trial estimate was unrealistic too.’
Rejecting her request for a split trial, they said: ‘The strain and inconvenience and impact on all the witnesses is a factor that militates against a split trial.
‘Standing back and looking at this in the round, taking a common sense and pragmatic approach, it seems to me the best course most consistent with the interests of justice and to enable the claim to be determined fairly and efficiently is to exercise my discretion to refuse the split trial.’