Dr Imad Nassani & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs
[2023] EWHC 2853 (Admin)
Dalston Project Limited & Ors. v Secretary of State for Transport
10 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1106 (Admin)
High Court
A superyacht owner sued the government after their boat was seized. They wanted money back for the seizure, and the court said they could get it as part of their main lawsuit, even though it’s usually a separate case.
Key Facts
- •Superyacht "Phi" detained by the Secretary of State for Transport due to its connection to a Russian national.
- •Claimants challenged the detention under s. 38(2) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAMLA).
- •Claimants sought to set aside the detention decision and claimed damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) and in the tort of conversion.
- •Disagreement between parties regarding whether the claim for damages in conversion should be heard alongside the SAMLA claim.
Legal Principles
In proceedings under s. 38(2) SAMLA, the court can award damages as it could in judicial review proceedings.
s. 38(5) SAMLA
In judicial review, the court can award damages, restitution or recovery of sums due under s. 31(4) SCA if the application includes a claim for such an award arising from any matter to which the application relates.
s. 31(4) Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA)
Section 39(2) SAMLA limits damages awards in certain circumstances but doesn't apply to the instant case.
s. 39(2) SAMLA
CPR Part 79, while designed for expedited proceedings, doesn't prevent the court from considering damages claims arising from the same matter.
CPR Part 79
There is no principled basis for distinguishing between damages under the HRA and tort damages at common law in this context.
Case law analysis
Outcomes
The court held that a claim for damages in conversion could be heard alongside the claim under s. 38(2) SAMLA.
s. 38(5) SAMLA allows the court to grant any relief available in judicial review proceedings; s. 31(4) SCA allows damages in judicial review; s. 39(2) SAMLA doesn't bar damages in this case; there's no principled reason to distinguish between HRA and common law damages claims.
The July hearing will address legal issues concerning the claimants’ entitlement to damages under the HRA and in conversion.
Pure issues of law regarding entitlement to damages will be determined at the July hearing, with factual issues addressed subsequently.
Similar Cases
Boris Mints & Ors v PJSC National Bank Trust & Anor
[2023] EWCA Civ 1132
Dalston Projects Limited & Ors v The Secretary of State for Transport
[2023] EWHC 1885 (Admin)
PJSC National Bank Trust & Anor v Boris Mints & Ors
[2023] EWHC 118 (Comm)
Mikhail Fridman, R (on the application of) v HM Treasury
[2023] EWHC 2657 (Admin)