Fridman, R (On the Application Of) v HM Treasury [2023] EWHC 2657 (Admin) (26 October 2023)

Fridman, R (On the Application Of) v HM Treasury [2023] EWHC 2657 (Admin) (26 October 2023)

OFSI acted within its lawful discretion under Regulation 64(2) in refusing the licences; its internal guidance did not constitute an unlawful unpublished policy; the licensing decisions were rational and consistent with the statutory regime; post-decision evidence was inadmissible; and the proposed amendments to the claim were refused as too late and lacking real prospect of success.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2657 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Mikhail Fridman; Defendant: HM Treasury
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Application to Set Aside OFSI Licensing Refusals Under S.38(2) SAMLA
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Asset Freezing, Licensing Under Sanctions, Judicial Review, Discretion of Public Authorities, Proportionality, Internal Guidance and Policy Disclosure
Public Law Sanctions Law Administrative Law Asset Freezing Licensing Under Sanctions Judicial Review Discretion of Public Authorities Proportionality +1 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mikhail Fridman

Claimant

HM Treasury

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Application to Set Aside OFSI Licensing Refusals Under S.38(2) SAMLA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether OFSI's refusal to grant licences for management fee, Ideaworks payment, and staff costs was lawful under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and SAMLA
  2. 2 Whether OFSI's internal guidance constituted an unpublished policy unlawfully applied
  3. 3 Whether post-decision evidence is admissible in judicial review of sanctions licensing decisions

Ratio Decidendi

OFSI acted within its lawful discretion under Regulation 64(2) in refusing the licences; its internal guidance did not constitute an unlawful unpublished policy; the licensing decisions were rational and consistent with the statutory regime; post-decision evidence was inadmissible; and the proposed amendments to the claim were refused as too late and lacking real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application to set aside OFSI's licensing refusals is refused
  • Permission to amend Particulars of Claim is refused