Asked by: Martin Rhodes (Labour - Glasgow North)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, pursuant to the Answer of 18 November 2025 to Question 89908 on Trade Agreements: Dispute Resolution, what assessment has the Government made of the likely costs of defending the arbitration being brought against it by Mikhail Fridman.
Answered by Chris Bryant - Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade)
Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provides an independent means for investors to resolve disputes with states where they believe they have experienced arbitrary, discriminatory, or unfair treatment or expropriation without compensation.
The UK has a longstanding track record of supporting foreign investment, including through fulfilling its obligations in the international investment agreements to which it is a party and has never faced a successful ISDS claim.
The Government maintains that it has acted consistently with domestic and international law obligations in the case of the legal challenges. In view of the ongoing proceedings, it would be inappropriate to comment further.
Asked by: Martin Rhodes (Labour - Glasgow North)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what assessment has the Government made of its overall exposure to further potential Investor-State Dispute Settlement cases over sanctions policy on Russia.
Answered by Chris Bryant - Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade)
Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provides an independent means for investors to resolve disputes with states where they believe they have experienced arbitrary, discriminatory, or unfair treatment or expropriation without compensation.
The UK has a longstanding track record of supporting foreign investment, including through fulfilling its obligations in the international investment agreements to which it is a party and has never faced a successful ISDS claim.
The Government maintains that it has acted consistently with domestic and international law obligations in the case of the legal challenges. In view of the ongoing proceedings, it would be inappropriate to comment further.