A fresh challenge to the UK’s sanctions fell at the first hurdle. In Ismailov v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2026] EWHC 1188 (Admin), Mr Justice Saini refused an application to overturn the UK sanctions designation imposed on the nephew of Alisher Usmanov, Sarvar Ismailov, listed solely by virtue of his blood relationship to his uncle, despite the Court recording that he “has no political profile or political connections in Russia, nor any personal or other relationship with, or close access to, President Putin or any other decision makers within the Russian Government".
The judgment is a clear signal that challenges to designations under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 will continue to face a near-impossibly high bar. Applying and extending the Supreme Court’s approach in Shvidler1 and the Court of Appeal’s decision in Khan2, Justice Saini rejected all seven grounds advanced.
Background
At a statutory level, the first section of the Sanctions and Anti Money Laundering Act 2018 (“SAMLA”) empowers ministers to make sanctions regulations where doing so serves specified purposes. These include “the interests of international peace and security” and “a foreign policy objective of the government of the United Kingdom”.
The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 were made under s.1 of SAMLA, with the aim of “encouraging Russia to cease actions destabilising Ukraine” (“the Regulations”). In July 2022, the Regulations were amended whereby being “associated with” an involved person now included “immediate family member”, such as “a niece or nephew”.
The Claimant, Mr Ismailov moved to the UK aged 13, built his career there (including roles at Everton FC), but has lived with his young family outside the UK since 2022. The Court recorded that he has never been resident in Russia and has no political profile or Kremlin access. His uncle, Alisher Usmanov, was designated on 3 March 2022 for involvement in sectors of strategic significance and for the deterrent and cumulative effect of sanctions at that level.
One might expect that, given the above background, Mr Ismailov stood very little risk of being designated. Nonetheless, following the amendments to the Regulations, an authorised official designated Mr Ismailov on 26 July 2022.
The grounds and the Court’s decision
Legality and proportionality of the “family” criterion
The Claimant argued that eligibility based on “pure accident of birth” offends legality and foreseeability, and is disproportionate in almost every case. The Court rejected this. Relying on Khan, Justice Saini held the Regulations are “plainly” accessible and foreseeable:
“The regulations plainly operate in a foreseeable manner and do not give the Secretary of State an unfettered discretion. […] The fact that the “trigger” for designation is one of family association, rather than individual conduct, does not render the regulations obscure or unforeseeable: a person either is, or is not, the immediate family member of an involved person.”3
Ultra vires?
The Claimant said the Regulations as amended went beyond the Minister’s powers for two reasons. First, the “appropriateness” condition in section 45(2) of SAMLA was not met: the amendment was said to have been rushed through without proper consideration (and without an impact assessment). Second, because UK Russia sanctions initially mirrored the EU regime, the Minister could not later broaden “associated with” to cover immediate family unless that was consistent with EU case law on association.
The Court rejected both limbs. On appropriateness, Justice Saini held that the statutory condition was satisfied. The Minister had considered the matter and concluded the amendments were appropriate for their stated purpose, which was also recorded and reflected in the Explanatory Memorandum (“aim to achieve the same purposes as the existing sanctions regime”). In Justice Saini’s words:
“the Minister received specific advice on that matter, and concluded that the amendments were appropriate for that stated purpose”
“Section 45(2)(a) imposes no such requirement: the statutory condition is simply that the Minister considers the amended regulations to be appropriate for their stated purpose. That condition was plainly satisfied.”4.
On the EU constraint limb, the Court held that SAMLA created a freestanding domestic scheme. The fact the UK initially replicated EU measures did not freeze the scope of ministerial powers at the point of exit.
The Carltona principle: must the Secretary of State personally decide?
The Claimant’s argument was that only the Secretary of State could lawfully take the designation and review decisions; an official could not. The claimant said the seriousness of sanctions took this outside the Carltona principle, which is the doctrine that holds that government departmental officials can act on behalf of their minister, making their actions legally equivalent to those of the minister.
The Court confirmed that Carltona applies to sanctions designations and maintenance reviews, aligning with the Supreme Court’s approach in Shvidler. Analysing statutory language, the nature of the power and practical burden, Justice Saini concluded that requiring personal decisions in thousands of cases would render the regime “effectively unworkable” in a fast moving foreign policy context.
Proportionality of maintaining the designation
The Claimant’s argument was that, even if the sanctions based on family association were lawful in the abstract, maintaining this particular designation was a disproportionate interference with Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights.
The Claimant said there was no real world rational connection between listing an uninvolved nephew and stopping Russia’s aggression; that less intrusive alternatives (or no listing) should have been used; and that, given the severe, open ended effects on his private life and property, the fair balance was not struck. He relied on expert evidence contending that individual designations of wealthy Russians and their relatives do not influence Kremlin decision making.
The Court disagreed. Applying Bank Mellat5 and giving appropriate weight to Government’s institutional competence in foreign affairs, Justice Saini conducted his own assessment. The Court endorsed a suite of reasons justifying this designation as part of the Regulation’s “cumulative effect”. Two passages stand out:
“[…] designating the Claimant for his association with Mr Usmanov sends a signal to the Claimant, other people in similar positions and the wider international community that there are negative consequences to associating with such persons as Mr Usmanov, who themselves obtain a benefit from and/or support the Government of Russia.” 6
“[…] the UK sanctions regime is not dependent upon any one particular sanction being of critical effect, rather the system is built around a cumulative mass of sanctions and other prohibitive measures […]”
Irrationality
The argument was that the maintenance decision was unreasonable in the public law sense, in that no reasonable decision‑maker could think that keeping an uninvolved nephew on the list would advance the Regulation’s aim. The Court disagreed. This added nothing to the proportionality challenge. Given the wide margin afforded to Government in this field and, the decision was open to the Secretary of State. On the material before Justice Saini, there was nothing irrational about maintaining the designation.
Arbitrariness
The Claimant’s argument here was, put simply: why me and not others? The Claimant pointed to other relatives of designated figures who have not been listed, and said this showed arbitrary, unequal treatment.
The Court rejected this. Following Shvidler, it stressed that the Claimant’s picks of comparators do not help unless they are truly like for like and there is compelling evidence of unfair selection. There are many legitimate reasons why some family members are designated and others are not. The bar is set very high.
Public Sector Equality Duty
The final argument pursued by the Claimant was that the Secretary of State failed to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) when maintaining the designation. The Court found no breach.
Conclusion
The Court is frank about the severity of sanctions. This judgment is an example of the entrenchment of the Supreme Court’s approach in Shvidler, how harsh, even “draconian”, measures can lawfully be maintained where they form part of a foreign policy strategy. The Court treats family association as a legitimate means to deter association, reduce circumvention risk and add weight to the aggregate pressure on the Russian state—even if the relative has no personal wrongdoing.
Critics – including the authors of this article - will ask what a nephew can do about an uncle. For designation challenges, creative thinking is required to combat an extraordinarily deferential approach adopted by the Courts in favour of the executive.
With thanks to Jake Saville for his contributions to this article.
1 Shvidler v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2025] UKSC 30 (“Shvidler”)
2 Khan v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2025] EWCA Civ 41 (“Khan”)
3 [91]
4 [108]–[109]
5 Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury [2013] UKSC 38 & [2013] UKSC 39 (“Bank Mellat”)
6 [141(1)]
7 [141(6)]
