High Court ruling on Ismailov sanctions

On 9 April 2025, the High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, issued a significant judgement regarding Sarvar Ismailov's appeal against the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs related to sanctions imposed on him. The sanctions, based on the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, led to a freezing of Ismailov's assets and restrictions on trust services and transport, severely affecting his personal and professional life.

In the heart of the judgement was Ismailov’s request for more information about the reasoning behind his financial sanctions, as outlined in CPR 79.11(5). His legal team argued that these sanctions were imposed unfairly due to his familial connection to Alisher Usmanov, an uncle who had been sanctioned for his ties to the Russian government. Ismailov contended that his connection to Usmanov was strictly family-oriented and had no political implications or influence within Russia.

The court provided context, noting that Ismailov aimed to challenge the legality of the Secretary of State's decision, claiming that the measures were unjust and unsupported by adequate evidence. His pursuit for additional information included inquiries into whether external lobbying could have unduly influenced the Secretary of State’s decision, which raised concerns about possible breaches of expected legal protocols.

Mr Justice Saini presided over the case, giving weight to the arguments from Ismailov's counsel. He referenced the involvement of an unidentified public body that allegedly recommended sanctions based solely on familial ties rather than substantial evidence of wrongdoing on Ismailov's part. The judge remarked that the Secretary of State's justification for the sanctions primarily stemmed from Ismailov’s association with Usmanov, lacking direct evidence linking him to destabilising actions in Ukraine or undermining Russian sovereignty.

In defence, representatives from the Secretary of State contended that Ismailov's request for additional information was essentially a "fishing expedition", arguing that the sought information did not pertain to the justification for his designation and was thus irrelevant to resolving the case. They asserted that the extensive evidence already provided fulfilled all necessary legal obligations, insisting that no further disclosures were mandated under CPR 79.23.

Upon assessing the arguments presented, the court scrutinised the parameters and intended use of CPR 79.11(5), affirming that it wasn't intended to enable broad information requests but rather to address specific issues raised in legal pleadings. Ultimately, Mr Justice Saini determined that Ismailov's application lacked the legal foundation required, as it did not directly connect to the rationale behind the Secretary of State's designation.

The judgement concluded that Ismailov's motion for additional information regarding lobbying efforts and internal conversations about his designation proposal was denied. Mr Justice Saini underscored that the existing disclosure given by the Secretary of State was adequate and complied with the relevant legal standards, thereby reaffirming the legality of the sanctions imposed based on the evidence available.

This judgement illuminates the challenging balance the courts must maintain between ensuring transparency in administrative processes connected to sanctions while also upholding legal frameworks that prevent unnecessary disclosures that could jeopardise governmental discussions. It underlines the crucial need for rigorous evidentiary standards in cases where substantial sanctions affect individuals, ensuring that legal protections against arbitrary governmental actions are upheld