On 9 April 2025, the High Court rejected Sarvar Ismailov’s request for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to provide the disclosure of unredacted material and information relating to the reasoning behind his sanctions designation.
Mr Ismailov was designated in July 2022 under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and under regulations 5 and 6 of the Russia (Sanctions)(EU Exit) Regulations 2019, by the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs.
The basis upon which the Secretary of State designated Mr Ismailov included reasonable grounds to suspect that he was an “involved person” (a statutory term defined under the 2018 Act) by virtue of being “associated” with a person who was or had been involved in either destabilising Ukraine or undermining or threatening its territorial integrity, sovereignty or independence, or obtaining a benefit from or supporting the Russian government. That person was said to be his uncle, Alisher Usmanov. In essence, Mr Ismailov was sanctioned because he is his uncle’s nephew.
Mr Ismailov challenged his designation by issuing proceedings under section 38 of the 2018 Act in July 2024.
In November 2024, Gherson LLP requested the disclosure of unredacted material from the Foreign Office relating to the decision around the designation of Mr Ismailov. In particular, Gherson LLP requested unredacted (undisclosed) documents discussing the proposal to designate Mr Ismailov and to provide copies of further internal and external correspondence which discussed the proposal to designate Mr Ismailov. On the face of the material already disclosed, it appeared that other UK public bodies and an agency in another country had sought to encourage the Foreign Office to designate Mr Ismailov.
Mr Hugo Keith KC and Rachel Scott KC of Three Raymond Buildings represented Mr Ismailov at the disclosure hearing held on 4 April 2025. They argued that the process by which Mr Ismailov came to be designated appeared to have been tainted by political and presentational considerations, as opposed to the appropriate application of the statutory criteria.
The High Court dismissed Mr Ismailov’s application for the disclosure of unredacted material and further information.
Mr Ismailov is now seeking permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The main proceedings under section 38 of the Act, concerning Mr Ismailov’s challenge to the actual decision to designate him, are ongoing, and a hearing in the High Court is yet to be scheduled.
Updated: 11 April 2025
If you have any questions arising from this article, please do not hesitate to contact us for advice, send us an e-mail or, alternatively, follow us on X, Facebook, Instagram or LinkedIn to stay-up-to-date.
The information in this article 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