Partner James Clark and Associate Jordan Hill examine sanctions and freezing orders, in The Times

Writing in The Times, Partner James Clark and Associate Jordan Hill explore the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of Eugene Shvidler, and discuss how Lord Leggatt’s dissenting judgment stands out as a critical defence of individual rights in the face of political expediency.

James and Jordan’s article was published in The Times, 7 August 2025.

In 1989, Eugene Shvidler left the Soviet Union, obtaining refugee status in the USA before being granted a UK visa under the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme.  A British citizen since 2010, he and his family chose to build their lives in England. He has not set foot in Russia since 2007, holds no ties to its regime, and has never been a citizen of the Russian Federation. Indeed, in March 2022, he publicly condemned the “senseless violence” in Ukraine.

Nevertheless, in March 2022, the UK Government took the draconian step of freezing Mr Shvidler’s assets on the basis that he is “associated with” Mr Roman Abramovich; and that he was a non-executive director of Evraz plc, a mining company carrying on business in a sector of strategic significance to Russia.

Critically, because Mr Shvidler is a British citizen, the asset-freeze makes it a criminal offence for him to deal with his assets anywhere in the world – subject to certain limited exceptions.

Ironically, had Mr Shvidler not become a British citizen, the asset-freeze would be limited to his assets in the UK – he would have been better off.  Instead, he cannot even buy food without obtaining a licence to do so.  This is in circumstances where he has done nothing unlawful.

It is unquestionable that the asset-freeze interferes with Mr Shvidler’s fundamental right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions (a right guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights).  The question is whether such interference is justified in the public interest.

Having failed to persuade the Government and the lower courts that the answer to that question was a resounding “no”, Mr Shvidler appealed to the Supreme Court to uphold his rights.  Sadly, they did not do so: the majority (4 out of 5 Judges) deferred to the UK Government on the basis that the executive branch has a “wide margin of appreciation” when imposing sanctions for the pursuit of foreign policy objectives.

Lord Leggatt did not defer.  In a dissenting judgment which will no doubt roar through the ages, he championed the constitutional role which our courts should play in keeping checks and balances on the executive powers exercised by the Government.

Without that separation of powers, our fundamental liberties are under threat.  Citing Magna Carta and Orwell, Lord Leggatt stood up for those liberties and declared unlawful the asset-freeze “without any geographical or temporal limit” which has deprived Mr Shvidler of the basic freedom to use his possessions as he wishes, a freedom to which he should be entitled as a citizen of this country.

In 1989, Mr Shvidler left a country in which – in his words – “individuals could be stripped of their rights with little or no protections”.  He has since left the UK for the same reason.