Sarvar Ismailov v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs

Applications under CPR 79.11(5) must seek information about the Minister’s pleaded grounds for contesting a sanctions challenge and explain why it is necessary to determine the challenge. The provision does not create a route to specific disclosure or permit a fishing expedition for material supporting a new, unpleaded ground.

In sanctions proceedings under section 38 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, disclosure is governed by the bespoke regime in CPR 79.23. Judicial review principles of candour do not require a Minister to search for material supporting an unpleaded challenge where that would conflict with the express procedural regime.

The claimant challenged his designation under section 38 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. He sought further information under CPR 79.11(5) about a redacted email chain recording a third-party proposal that he be sanctioned, including the identity of the public body, communications about the proposal and internal discussions.

The defendant contended that the requests were not about his pleaded grounds, were unnecessary for determination of the challenge and sought specific disclosure. The central issues were the scope of CPR 79.11(5), the relationship between that rule and CPR 79.23, and whether judicial review disclosure principles required further disclosure relating to an unpleaded allegation of improper influence.

1. Application dismissed. The claimant’s requests did not satisfy CPR 79.11(5)–(7). They were not about the Secretary of State’s pleaded grounds for contesting the designation challenge and the claimant had not shown that they were necessary for determination of the challenge as pleaded.
2. CPR 79.11(5) is a bespoke provision for further information about the Minister’s grounds. It should be approached by analogy with CPR Part 18. The request must relate specifically to a matter in dispute and clarify the pleaded case. It cannot be used as a specific disclosure application or to obtain information that might support a new claim.
3. The disclosed email chain was not included or referred to in the ministerial submissions leading to the designation decision and did not form part of that decision-making process. The evidence did not provide a proper basis for an improper-influence, rationality or relevant-considerations challenge based on the chain. The remaining categories were therefore irrelevant or unnecessary.
4. The Court has power to police compliance with CPR 79.23 and make remedial orders where necessary, although CPR 79.22(1) disapplies the general disclosure rules in CPR Part 31. On the evidence, the Secretary of State had disclosed material on which he relied, which adversely affected his case or which supported the claimant’s case.
5. General judicial review candour principles, including the principle described in Rex (Police Superintendents Association) v Police Remuneration Review Body and another [2023] EWHC 1838 (Admin), do not require a Minister operating under CPR Part 79 to search for material capable of supporting an unpleaded challenge. The merits of the sanctions challenge are governed by judicial review principles, but disclosure is governed by the self-contained CPR Part 79 regime.
6. The Court did not address proportionality because it did not arise.