Mikhail Fridman, R (on the application of) v HM Treasury

Mikhail Fridman, R (on the application of) v HM Treasury

OFSI lawfully refused the licence applications as the payments would have indirectly benefited another designated person, did not meet the requirements of the relevant derogations, and OFSI rationally exercised its residual discretion in line with the statutory purpose. The Court's review is limited to the material before OFSI at the time of decision, and there was no procedural unfairness or unlawful reliance on unpublished policy.

Parties
Claimant: Mikhail Fridman; Defendant: HM Treasury
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (administrative Sanctions) / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Asset Freezing, Licensing Under Sanctions, Judicial Review Principles, Discretionary Powers, Procedural Fairness
Public Law Sanctions Law Administrative Law Asset Freezing Licensing Under Sanctions Judicial Review Principles Discretionary Powers Procedural Fairness

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mikhail Fridman

Claimant

HM Treasury

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (administrative Sanctions) / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

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 2018
  2. 2 Whether the payments fell within the relevant derogations (Prior Obligations, Basic Needs, Routine Holding and Maintenance)
  3. 3 Whether OFSI misapplied its discretion or acted irrationally

Ratio Decidendi

OFSI lawfully refused the licence applications as the payments would have indirectly benefited another designated person, did not meet the requirements of the relevant derogations, and OFSI rationally exercised its residual discretion in line with the statutory purpose. The Court's review is limited to the material before OFSI at the time of decision, and there was no procedural unfairness or unlawful reliance on unpublished policy.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed