United Kingdom: UK Court of Appeal issues far-reaching judgment on scope of trade sanctions and financial assistance

In brief

On 11 June 2024, the UK Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in the case of Celestial Aviation Services Limited v UniCredit Bank GmbH (London Branch) [2024] EWCA Civ 628. In summary, the Court of Appeal determined that, in the context of payment obligations under standby letters of credit ("LCs"), sanctions measures relating to financing the supply of restricted items can apply retrospectively as well as prospectively, significantly widening the scope of application of such measures and creating uncertainty around the permissibility of payments where they have a degree of connection with restricted items, including where those items were lawfully supplied prior to the sanctions being introduced. The Court of Appeal overturned the 2023 High Court judgment that found UniCredit was not justified in refusing to make payment to aircraft lessors under LCs issued in connection with aircraft leases to Russian companies that were entered into prior to the relevant sanctions being introduced


Contents

The Court of Appeal considered:

  • The scope of Regulation 28 of the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 ("UK Russia Regulations"), which prohibits the provision of financial services or funds in relation to the supply of certain restricted goods.
  • The scope of Section 44 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAMLA), which provides that a party shall have a defence in civil proceedings in respect of acts done in reasonable belief that the acts are in compliance with UK sanctions; and
  • The relevance of US sanctions where a payment obligation is denominated in US dollars. 

The Court of Appeal concluded that UniCredit was entitled to withhold payment on the basis the arrangement fell within the applicable sanctions regime. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the relevant sanctions restrictions did not apply, UniCredit would have been able to avail itself of a "reasonable belief" defence in support of withholding payment.

The Court of Appeal's decision has far-reaching implications for any parties involved in trade finance transactions (either banks or beneficiaries), or other financing activities connected to trade in goods that are (or have become) subject to sanctions. The case is also significant in highlighting the extent to which UK courts may take differing views of key elements of the UK sanctions framework.

Click here to read the full alert.


Copyright © 2024 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.