Dalston Projects Limited & Ors v Secretary of State for Transport

Dalston Projects Limited & Ors v Secretary of State for Transport

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judges applied the correct legal principles to proportionality, save for a minor error in Shvidler, but that error did not affect the outcome. The detentions and designations were within the statutory powers, rationally connected to the legitimate aim of responding to Russia's actions in Ukraine, and proportionate. The Secretary of State did not act for an improper purpose, did not take into account irrelevant considerations, and gave sufficient grounds for the decisions. The cumulative effect of sanctions is a legitimate consideration. The appeals were dismissed.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Dalston Projects Limited; Claimant/appellant: Sergei Georgievich Naumenko; Claimant/appellant: Prism Maritime Limited; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for Transport; Claimant/appellant: Eugene Shvidler; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal, Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Proportionality, Sanctions, Asset Freezing, Human Rights Act, European Convention on Human Rights, Administrative Law
Public Law Human Rights Law Sanctions Law Judicial Review Proportionality Sanctions Asset Freezing Human Rights Act +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dalston Projects Limited

Claimant/appellant

Sergei Georgievich Naumenko

Claimant/appellant

Prism Maritime Limited

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for Transport

Defendant/respondent

Eugene Shvidler

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal, Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What principles govern judicial review of executive decisions on proportionality under the Human Rights Act?
  2. 2 What is the appellate court's role in reviewing proportionality assessments?
  3. 3 Were the detentions/designations under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 lawful and proportionate interferences with A1P1 and Article 8 rights?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judges applied the correct legal principles to proportionality, save for a minor error in Shvidler, but that error did not affect the outcome. The detentions and designations were within the statutory powers, rationally connected to the legitimate aim of responding to Russia's actions in Ukraine, and proportionate. The Secretary of State did not act for an improper purpose, did not take into account irrelevant considerations, and gave sufficient grounds for the decisions. The cumulative effect of sanctions is a legitimate consideration. The appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal in Dalston Projects dismissed
  • Appeal in Shvidler dismissed