Shvidler v Secretary of State: what the Supreme Court’s decision means for judicial oversight of UK sanctions

The recent Supreme Court judgment in Shvidler v Secretary of State has far-reaching implications for the UK’s sanctions framework. By expanding ministerial discretion in sanctions cases, the decision raises concerns about the balance between executive power and judicial review.

In this article, Roger Gherson, Senior Partner of Gherson Solicitors LLP, shares his thoughts on whether this shift risks turning judicial oversight from an independent check into a procedural formality for those challenging sanctions designations.

The article “Shvidler and the Rise of Unqualified Deference” was originally published in the International Compliance Association’s magazine inCOMPLIANCE.

The information in this blog is for general information purposes only and does not purport to be comprehensive or to provide legal advice. Whilst every effort is made to ensure the information and law is current as of the date of publication it should be stressed that, due to the passage of time, this does not necessarily reflect the present legal position. Gherson accepts no responsibility for loss which may arise from accessing or reliance on information contained in this blog. For formal advice on the current law please do not hesitate to contact Gherson. Legal advice is only provided pursuant to a written agreement, identified as such, and signed by the client and by or on behalf of Gherson.

©Gherson 2025