The High Court has refused to grant interim mandatory injunctive relief in the form of restored access to banking services, where there was a risk that the funds would become available to a Syrian national subject to EU sanctions.
The applicant’s husband was a Syrian national subject to financial sanctions. He paid large sums of money into her Barclays accounts. The bank froze both their accounts. The bank argued that the funds in the applicant’s accounts belonged to, were owned by or controlled by her husband, and were it to unfreeze the accounts, the funds would directly or indirectly become available to her husband or for his benefit.
Picken J held as follows:
- The case was not an unusually sharp and clear one, where it would be right to grant interim mandatory injunctive relief. The court could not have a “high degree of assurance” that at trial Barclays would be unable to show that it had “reasonable cause to suspect” that it was dealing with funds belonging to, or owned or held or controlled by, a designated person. The sizeable payments into the applicant’s account from her husband’s account (as well as into an account held by the applicant with another bank) caused suspicion arising not merely because of the spousal relationship.
- Transferring money out of an account which he must have known would be frozen raised questions as to the husband’s willingness to evade sanctions. The court could not have a “high degree of assurance” that, were Barclays to unfreeze the applicant’s accounts, it would not thereby be making the funds available, directly or indirectly to her husband, or for his benefit.
- The balance of convenience rested firmly on Barclays’ side. The difficulties faced by the applicant due to the freezing of her accounts were outweighed by the risk that, were the injunction granted, Barclays would be committing a criminal offence.
Hmicho v Barclays Bank Plc [2015] EWHC 1757 (QB), 19 June 2015
