Court Of Appeal Finds English Courts Lack Jurisdiction Over Sanctioned Individual Who Is Not Permitted To Enter The UK

• Published date: 10 March 2026
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Court Procedure, Civil Law
• Law Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP
• Author: Andrew Cooke, Maura McIntosh and Tracey Lattimer

The decision confirms that presence in the jurisdiction at the time of service remains a substantive jurisdictional requirement.

The Court of Appeal has held that the English courts do not have jurisdiction as of right over a sanctioned individual who used to reside in London, continues to own a home there and has expressed a desire to live in that home, but is currently banned from entering the UK for an indefinite period of time: Fridman v Agrofirma Oniks LLC [2026] EWCA Civ 139.

Having considered conflicting Court of Appeal authority on the point, the court concluded that presence within the jurisdiction at the time of service is essential for it to assume jurisdiction as of right over an individual. While presence is a flexible concept and will not be negated by temporary absence from the jurisdiction, the notion of temporary absence "must be kept within relatively narrow bounds". The court considered that the concept of "presence" does not extend to an individual who is legally prevented from returning to the UK for an indefinite period - but left open where the precise boundaries lie.

Where an individual is not present within the jurisdiction in the relevant sense, this decision means that service at their "usual" or "last known" residence will not be sufficient to enable the English courts to exercise jurisdiction over the claim. This is despite the terms of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) which suggest that this will be good service.

The decision has practical implications for claims against sanctioned and other individuals who are banned from the UK - and others who are not considered to be "present" within the jurisdiction because their absence is more than merely temporary. Claimants are likely to need to seek permission to serve proceedings on such individuals outside the jurisdiction - which will likely increase costs and result in delays - unless solicitors in the jurisdiction are instructed to accept service.

Interestingly, shortly before the Court of Appeal's decision in this case, the London Circuit Commercial Court held in Li v Yuan [2026] EWHC 242 (Comm) that, in the context of enforcing foreign judgments in England and Wales, it is well established that the judgment debtor's residence in the foreign country at the time proceedings were instituted (even without physical presence) is sufficient to establish that the foreign court had jurisdiction. It remains to be seen whether there is a difference between this test of residence and the broad concept of presence (which is not negated by temporary absence) endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Fridman.

Background

The claimants issued proceedings in February 2024 against the defendant, an "immensely wealthy" Russian individual. The defendant had moved to London in 2013, acquired a property in Hampstead (Athlone House) in...