Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The High Court dismissed a sanctions review challenge to the family-association designation criterion and the claimant’s maintained designation under the Russia Regulations.
The claim was dismissed because the UK’s designation of DANA did not engage Article 1 ECHR jurisdiction, as DANA had no assets or business in the UK and none of the exceptional extraterritorial categories applied. Even if ECHR rights were engaged, the designation was proportionate and rational, serving legitimate foreign policy objectives, and DANA was properly found to be an 'involved person' under the Regulations. The rationality and proportionality challenges failed, and there was no arbitrariness or unlawful retrospectivity.
Source excerpt
Payment of rent under a pre-designation lease to a designated person falls within the Regulation 58(5) exemption; section 44 SAMLA does not bar proceedings for recovery of debt but may protect against insolvency proceedings based on reasonable belief; funds held by applicant's solicitors do not constitute security; contractual interest is subject to substantial dispute.
Source excerpt
Commercial Court judgment on EuroChem bond demands, EU sanctions, and assignment issues involving Société Générale and ING.
The Supreme Court upheld sanctions against Eugene Shvidler and the detention of the yacht Phi, holding the measures proportionate, lawful, and supported by adequate reasons.
The court considered jurisdiction, summary judgment and injunction applications concerning ownership of Panamanian bearer-share companies and related asset control.
Dana Astra IOOO v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2025] EWHC 289 (Admin) (11 February 2025)
The High Court dismissed DANA Astra IOOO’s challenge to its Belarus sanctions designation, rejecting Article 1 ECHR jurisdiction and finding the decision proportionate and rational.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Ms Khan’s challenge to her sanctions designation, holding it was lawful, proportionate, and compatible with the ECHR.
There is a serious issue to be tried as to whether the assets held by the defendant (including those purportedly transferred to Quintet and those subject to the Trust Deed) belong to the claimant as trustee for its customers. The defendant has no beneficial interest in the assets and should be restrained from dealing with them. Damages are not an adequate remedy because the assets are held on trust for third parties. The cross-undertaking in damages, qualified by sanctions law, is appropriate.
Source excerpt
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…
Source excerpt
Explore more
