Sanctioned entities have fundamental right of access to English courts

News / / London

PJSC National Bank Trust & another v. Boris Mints & others [2023] EWHC 118 (Comm)

This Commercial Court decision will be of interest to those who have commercial dealings with counterparties that may be subject to or affected by international sanctions against Russia and Russian entities and individuals following the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. This is particularly so for those who are already, or may yet become, involved in English Court proceedings with such entities.

The Court has found that the UK sanctions regime does not deny sanctioned entities the right to access the English courts in circumstances where their disputes are subject to the English Court’s jurisdiction and they have a good arguable claim.

In coming to this decision, the Court usefully summarised the applicable sanctions regulations and considered the scope of the licencing regime implemented by the UK Office of Foreign Sanctions (OFSI).

The background facts

In June 2019, the claimants commenced claims against the defendants, seeking damages in the sum of about US$850 million. The claimants contended that the defendants conspired with representatives of the claimant banks to enter into uncommercial transactions with companies connected with the defendants by which loans were replaced by worthless or near worthless bonds. The claimants obtained freezing orders against some of the defendants but, before trial, Russia invaded Ukraine.

As a result, the second claimant, Bank Okritie, was designated as a sanctioned entity by the UK authorities. Its assets were frozen and dealings in them prohibited.

Consequently, the defendants argued that:

  • it would be unlawful for the Court to enter judgment for the claimants.
  • various interlocutory stages could not be completed at all because they required a licence and no such licence could or would be granted.
  • allowing the proceedings to continue while sanctions remained in force would cause them serious prejudice because the sanctions would prevent the claimants from satisfying any adverse costs orders, providing security for costs or paying any damages that might be awarded on their cross-undertaking in relation to the freezing order.

The defendants, therefore, sought a stay of the proceedings and to be released from their undertakings.

The sanctions and licencing regimes

Of particular relevance were the provisions of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, together with the regulations made under it in respect of Russia, namely the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

In essence, the sanctions make it a criminal offence to deal with the funds or economic resources of a designated person or to make funds or economic resources available to or for the benefit of a designated person. The prohibitions extend to entities that are owned or controlled directly or indirectly by a designated person. However, the OFSI (which is part of the UK Treasury Department) has a discretion to license certain specified activities that would otherwise be in breach of the Regulations.

The Commercial Court decision

The key issue was whether the Court could enter judgment in favour of the claimants in the event that its claims were upheld. This was not expressly prohibited by the Regulations. The Court, therefore, concluded that it could. While the Regulations were intended to curtail the rights of designated entities to a certain degree, it would have required very clear wording to “interfere with core judicial functions in this way.” Here, there was no clear derogation from the right of access to the English courts. Furthermore, there would be no sense in allowing designated entities to pursue litigation (as they were entitled to do) if they could not subsequently obtain judgment if they were successful.

The Court went on to find that payment of an adverse costs order was licensable. The OFSI's General Guidance expressly stated that a party may be given a licence to pay security for adverse costs. By implication, therefore, a licence actually to pay that liability could be issued and, in fact, OFSI had already issued such a licence in respect of an adverse costs order previously issued by the Court. Consequently,it made obvious sense that OFSI could also issue a licence to permit the payment of security for costs for the very purpose of meeting such adverse costs orders. Finally, a licence could also be issued in respect of payment of damages pursuant to the cross-undertaking.


Given the significance of the issues raised in the current sanctions climate, the Court granted leave to appeal. In the meantime, pending the Court of Appeal decision, it is clear that the English Court will not permit defendants to use sanctions as a means of escaping liability for their wrongs.

Julian Clark

Julian Clark Global Senior Partner

Akshay Misra

Akshay Misra Senior Associate

Reema Shour

Reema Shour Professional Support Lawyer

Related sectors:

Related services:

Related news & insights

News / One-off pilot error did not render port unsafe

21-03-2023 / Maritime

In this charterparty dispute, the arbitral tribunal rejected the Owners’ claim for damages for breach of the safe port warranty in a time charterparty, after a laden bulk carrier grounded at the entrance to the port of Chaozhou, China, while under compulsory pilotage. It also held that the vessel was unseaworthy, in breach of Article III.1 of the Hague Rules, due to lack of proper charts, but found on the facts that this was not causative of the grounding.

One-off pilot error did not render port unsafe

News / UK’s Electronic Trade Documents Bill progresses through Parliament

15-03-2023 / Maritime

On 15 March 2022, the UK’s Law Commission published its report, with draft legislation, for the legal recognition of electronic trade documents. One year later, the Electronic Trade Documents Bill introduced to the House of Lords is at the Report stage of the legislative process.

UK’s Electronic Trade Documents Bill progresses through Parliament

News / Court declines further adjournment of contempt application against sanctioned defendant

07-03-2023 / Maritime

In the recent case of PJSC National Bank Trust v. Boris Mints, the Court confirmed that sanctioned entities have a fundamental right of access to the English courts. In this case, the Court has made it clear that a defendant will not be permitted to delay any legitimate proceedings against him beyond what is reasonable on the basis that his sanctioned status may prevent him getting a fair trial.

Court declines further adjournment of contempt application against sanctioned defendant

News / Court finds hold reinspection should have been arranged with reasonable diligence

01-03-2023 / Maritime

On appeal from an arbitration award, the Court has agreed with the tribunal that there should be an implied term in the charterparty regarding the charterers’ obligations to arrange for a hold reinspection after a failed inspection. However, it has disagreed with the tribunal’s conclusion on whether this implied term had been breached.

Court finds hold reinspection should have been arranged with reasonable diligence

News / Admiralty Court tackles crossing rule head on

24-02-2023 / Maritime

This is the first collision case since the Supreme Court decision in the Ever Smart, in which the Admiralty Court has applied the crossing rules. This article discusses the Court's decision, which is unusual because of the finding of 100% liability against one vessel.

Admiralty Court tackles crossing rule head on

News / Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) – the work continues

24-02-2023 / Maritime

The international maritime industry is increasingly developing and relying on various levels of automation both onshore and on board. The IMO is leading the way forward and, among other things, has been taking a leading and proactive role in the introduction of commercially operated ships in autonomous mode.

Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) – the work continues