Print Article

UK significant sanctions judgment [Boris Mints & Ors v PJSC National Bank Trust]


On 6 October 2023, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Boris Mints & Ors v PJSC National Bank Trust & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 1132, a significant judgment concerning the interaction between the UK Russia sanctions regime and ongoing litigation involving designated persons.

Between :

  • Appellants/Defendants
    • and
  • Respondents/Claimants

The claimants in these proceedings are

  • Two state-owned Russian banks, who have quantified their claims at US$850 million.
  • The Second Claimant, Bank Otkritie, is a designated person under the Regulations.

The First Claimant, NBT, has not been designated, but the First to Fourth Defendants contended that the sanctions nonetheless catch it because it is owned or controlled by one or more designated persons within the meaning of Regulation 7, namely Vladimir Putin, the President of the Russian Federation, and Elvira Nabiullina, the Governor of the Central Bank of Russia.

It was common ground that

  • NBT is 99% owned by the Central Bank of Russia,
  • Which in turn is required by Russian law to pass 75% of its profits to the Russian Federal Budget.

The First to Fourth Defendants applied for a stay of the proceedings and discharge of return date undertakings, on grounds that

  1. The entry of a money judgment in favour of a sanctioned person is unlawful under the Regulations,
  2. Other litigation steps such as payment of adverse and favourable costs orders, payment of security  for costs and payment of damages pursuant to a cross-undertaking are also unlawful,
  3. There is no licensing ground under the Regulations by which such acts can be authorised by the Office of Sanctions Implementation (“OFSI”), and
  4. This would result in substantial prejudice to the First to Fourth Defendants if the litigation were to continue or if the undertakings were to remain in force.

At first instance, Mrs Justice Cockerill dismissed the application finding in favour of the Claimants, but granted the First to Fourth Defendants permission to appeal. In addressing the control issue, Mrs Justice Cockerill concluded that NBT was not owned or controlled by a designated person within the meaning of Regulation 7, because control is not established under Regulation 7 where a designated person controls an entity in virtue of a political office that they hold.

The Court of Appeal (per Sir Julian Flaux C, with whom Newey and Popplewell LJJ agreed) dismissed the appeal, upholding Mrs Justice Cockerill’s conclusion that the UK Russia did not prohibit the entry of a money judgment in favour of a designated person sanctions regime, and that the licensing grounds could authorise the various litigation steps. In those circumstances, the issue of control did not strictly arise, however as the issue had been fully argued the Court of Appeal considered the issue and decided it in favour of the Appellants, concluding that control can be established under Regulation 7 by whatever means, including political and corporate office, and accordingly the appellants were correct to contend that NBT is owned or controlled by one or both of President Putin or Governor Elvira Nabiullina such that it too is subject to the sanctions.

Simon Paul (with Laurence Rabinowitz KC and Niranjan Venkatesan) acted for the Appellants, the First to Fourth Defendants, instructed by Jonathan Brook of Enyo Law.

The judgment ([2023] EWCA Civ 1132) is available here.



The Team

Meet the team of industry experts behind Comsure

Find out more

Latest News

Keep up to date with the very latest news from Comsure

Find out more


View our latest imagery from our news and work

Find out more


Think we can help you and your business? Chat to us today

Get In Touch

News Disclaimer

As well as owning and publishing Comsure's copyrighted works, Comsure wishes to use the copyright-protected works of others. To do so, Comsure is applying for exemptions in the UK copyright law. There are certain very specific situations where Comsure is permitted to do so without seeking permission from the owner. These exemptions are in the copyright sections of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended)[]. Many situations allow for Comsure to apply for exemptions. These include 1] Non-commercial research and private study, 2] Criticism, review and reporting of current events, 3] the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is to illustrate a point. 4] no posting is for commercial purposes [payment]. (for a full list of exemptions, please read here]. Concerning the exceptions, Comsure will acknowledge the work of the source author by providing a link to the source material. Comsure claims no ownership of non-Comsure content. The non-Comsure articles posted on the Comsure website are deemed important, relevant, and newsworthy to a Comsure audience (e.g. regulated financial services and professional firms [DNFSBs]). Comsure does not wish to take any credit for the publication, and the publication can be read in full in its original form if you click the articles link that always accompanies the news item. Also, Comsure does not seek any payment for highlighting these important articles. If you want any article removed, Comsure will automatically do so on a reasonable request if you email