YBL sought costs and disbursements on an abandoned appeal – R opposed application on grounds that there was no provision in Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 (the rules) –

Court of Appeal (CA) had overriding discretion to make an order for costs that seem just concerning any part of the appeal – The fact that appeal was abandoned does not affect CA’s power to award costs – As the rules do not explicitly provide for the costs being sought, the High Court Rules 2016 can be applied by analogy and in the manner that CA thinks best calculated to promote the ends of justice – R to pay YBL costs of $478. 

Unsuccessful appeals from CA – Concerned questions about operation of sanctions United Kingdom government put in place to pressure Russian Federation to end war against Ukraine – Also addressed questions regarding proportionality of any interference with sanctioned person’s or entity’s Convention rights –  

S and DP subject to sanctions imposed on them under powers available under Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (SI 2019/855) as amended in 2022 (2019 Regulations) – S designated on 24 March 2022, a month after Russia invaded Ukraine – Effect to freeze S’s assets worldwide and made it criminal offence for others to deal with S in either private or commercial capacity, subject to few exceptions – DP owned yacht M/Y Phi (Phi), detained London Docks Secretary of State for Transport decision taken first on 28 March 2022 and renewed at intervals thereafter – Meant Phi moored in London since – N, ultimate yacht owner prevented from earning substantial income from chartering yacht out during spring and summer Mediterranean sailing season – 

S and DP challenged decisions imposing sanctions on them as disproportionately interfering with private life under Article 8 Human Rights Convention and affecting property rights under Article 1 First Protocol to Convention – Challenges brought not by way of ordinary judicial review proceedings but under special procedure set out in Part 79 Civil Procedure Rules – However, test courts apply is same test for judicial review – 

Government accepted interference with S’s and DP’s rights needed to be justified – Issue between parties whether interference justified in light of sanctions aims or whether disproportionate and unlawful – Challenges dismissed at first instance in two judgments – CA heard appeals together, both dismissed – Both appealed to SC –  

SC majority dismissed S’s appeal – Unanimously dismissed DP’s appeal – Said, as CA recognised, principles that first instance court should apply when reviewing executive decision on proportionality grounds, and principles appellate court should apply when reviewing first instance court decision not as well understood as need to be – 

When reviewing court carried out proportionality assessment had to decide for itself if actually been violation of Convention rights – Court’s function not merely secondary, reviewing function, dependent on establishing primary decision-maker misdirected itself, acted irrationally, or guilty of procedural impropriety – Further, measure of respect to be accorded by court to Government views depended on importance of right, degree of interference with right, and extent to which courts well placed to adjudicate balance of various rights and interests engaged – Also, where, as here, measures initially adopted have been subject to constant Ministerial review, challenge considered in light of all evidence filed, including after initial decision was taken until time of hearings themselves – 

Here, Foreign and Transport Secretaries had special constitutional responsibilities to respond to contain Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – Had superior institutional competence to make relevant assessment regarding matters of national security and conduct of UK’s international relations, including usefulness of sanctions in containing Russia’s actions – Secretaries should be accorded wide margin of appreciation in responding and seeking to restrain Russia’s actions in Ukraine – Appeals dismissed. 

Unsuccessful appeal from Ontario CA – Concerns whether Ontario courts could take jurisdiction over case involving foreign companies where part of trip arranged through credit card service based in Ontario – To take jurisdiction, court must be satisfied real and substantial connection between circumstances giving rise to claim and court location where claim brought – 

Ontario resident S, had credit card with Amex Canada providing access to concierge and travel agent service – Using service, booked trip to Europe for himself and family – While in Italy, S used same service to book transportation from Venice airport to hotel, including water taxi – Amex Canada contacted third-party travel service provider and made reservation – While in transit water taxi crashed into wooden structure, causing S serious injuries – 

S and wife commenced action in Ontario seeking damages against several defendants, including three Italian companies, Amex Canada, third-party travel service provider, and water taxi driver – Italian companies brought motion in Ontario Superior Court of Justice to dismiss or stay action against them, arguing Superior Court lacked jurisdiction, but were unsuccessful – Italian companies appealed to CA, which unanimously allowed appeal, saying improper for Ontario to assume jurisdiction – S appealed to SC – 

SC majority dismissed appeal – Said Ontario courts did not have jurisdiction over dispute in respect of Italian companies – To assume jurisdiction over claim, court had to be satisfied real and substantial connection between circumstances giving rise to claim and forum in where brought – Real and substantial connection test sought to mitigate jurisdictional overreach arising when connection between forum, dispute subject matter, and defendant not sufficient for court to assume jurisdiction – Appeal dismissed.