Writing in The Times, Partner Michelle Quinn discusses the tools at the court’s disposal, specifically contempt of court, to ensure that individuals living in other jurisdictions abide by British legal processes. She highlights the recent case of Russian oil tycoon Mikhail Kroupeev to illustrate the challenges of enforcing the law internationally, and suggests that targeting the wealthy’s assets could be a more effective way to approach this challenge.

Michelle’s article was published in The Times, 30 July 2025.

While outspoken disregard for judicial authority is an increasingly common sentiment in society, it remains relatively rare for courts to impose its harshest penalties for contempt of court. Perhaps it is time to re-visit when such penalties might be appropriate, especially when dealing with individuals residing abroad.

Contempt of court remains one of the strongest tools in a court’s armour to ensure compliance and is used sparingly. When Judge Richard Harrison recently handed down a 28-day suspended prison sentence to Russian oil tycoon Mikhail Kroupeev, it carried with it a powerful message – those who consistently refuse to comply with court orders will be dealt with.

But a very real issue is whether such a message becomes seriously diluted when it is aimed at an individual residing outside of the jurisdiction.

In this instance, the sentence was in response to Kroupeev’s persistent and flagrant disregard for court orders made in divorce proceedings involving his wife of 36 years, Elena Kroupeeva. Judge Harrison described Kroupeev’s conduct as “arrogant, controlling and profoundly disrespectful…” and stated that he had “no choice” but to hand down the suspended prison sentence. 

For now, Kroupeev has been granted a temporary reprieve. If he complies with an order that he pays just over £195,000 towards Mrs Kroupeeva’s legal fees, he will not be imprisoned.

But Kroupeev, a Russian national with British citizenship, resides in Cyprus. Will the threat of imprisonment be enough to ensure his compliance with the costs order (and other orders going forward)?

Even if Kroupeev fails to respect the court costs order and the threat of imprisonment lying behind it, there is a limit to what affirmative action can actually be taken. Should he refuse to obey, there are numerous legal and practical hurdles which would have to be overcome, all of which would be both costly and time-consuming.

His residence in Cyprus means that he would have to be extradited in order to serve a prison sentence. That, in itself, is a process fraught with obstacles, especially if the person in question possesses a personal fortune. The court has few other tools at its disposal to command Kroupeev’s presence.

There is, however, another sanction for contempt that is rarely used – confiscation of assets held in the jurisdiction. Perhaps, where wealthy individuals are concerned, confiscating their assets in the UK could prove to be a more effective deterrent than the threat of a prison sentence which may never be capable of enforcement. Wealthy individuals should not be allowed to evade justice and hitting their pockets, rather than their liberty, may well be a better incentive to respect the English courts.