header-logo header-logo

UK sanctions: Compliance matters

248361
© Getty images
Sanctioning non-payment: what’s caught by the wide net of the UK regime? Brónagh Adams & Harriet Campbell stress the need for caution following Celestial Aviation v Unicredit
  • The Supreme Court’s decision in Celestial Aviation v UniCredit Bank GmbH has emphasised the broad scope of the UK sanctions regime and the importance of its public purpose.
  • In view of the volatile nature of global politics, compliance with the ‘wide net’ UK sanctions regime is critical.
  • While financial institutions may be able to rely on the ‘safety valve’ of a licensing system, few protections—and many risks—remain for organisations caught in the middle of a sanctioned supply chain.

In Unicredit Bank GmbH, London Branch v Celestial Aviation Services Ltd [2026] UKSC 10, the Supreme Court delivered a clear verdict on the broad scope of UK sanctions against Russia. The ‘blunt instrument’ of the Russian sanctions regime casts its net wide. Its purpose is to protect vital public interests, putting pressure on Russia by disrupting its strategic industries.

This judgment addresses the Russian sanctions regime.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll