The parties married in Russia in 1983 and lived there throughout their marriage. They have three adult children. In the 1990s, the husband amassed a large fortune, estimated to amount to $20 billion. The majority of his assets comprised shares in companies or other business entities. These were not registered in the husband's name, though the husband was their beneficial owner. The parties divorced in 2014, which prompted extensive litigation in Russia, as well as claims in the USA and Cyprus. The wife sought to obtain half of the assets beneficially owned by the husband, but her attempts were unsuccessful.
In 2019, the wife sought permission to apply for financial relief pursuant to Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. The High Court Judge initially granted the permission at a "without notice" hearing, where the husband was not represented. However, the Judge subsequently allowed the husband's application to set the permission aside on the basis that the Judge had been misled. The Court of Appeal allowed the wife's appeal. The husband now appeals to the Supreme Court.

These are three conjoined appeals. Each appeal relates to a claim by an Appellant for psychiatric illness caused by viewing a traumatic event which was caused by a Respondent's negligence. In each case, the Appellant witnessed or attended shortly after a death caused by the Respondent's negligence.
Following existing law, the Paul and Purchase claims were dismissed by the High Court and County Court respectively, with permission given to appeal. Following Paul, an application to dismiss the claim in Polmear was rejected and permission given to appeal.
The cases were conjoined and heard together before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found for the Appellants in Paul and Polmear, and for the Respondent in Purchase.
All three cases come before the Supreme Court as a conjoined appeal.

These are three conjoined appeals. Each appeal relates to a claim by an Appellant for psychiatric illness caused by viewing a traumatic event which was caused by a Respondent's negligence. In each case, the Appellant witnessed or attended shortly after a death caused by the Respondent's negligence.
Following existing law, the Paul and Purchase claims were dismissed by the High Court and County Court respectively, with permission given to appeal. Following Paul, an application to dismiss the claim in Polmear was rejected and permission given to appeal.
The cases were conjoined and heard together before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found for the Appellants in Paul and Polmear, and for the Respondent in Purchase.
All three cases come before the Supreme Court as a conjoined appeal.