• 

Foreign Exchange Risk Management.

📌 1. Regulatory Framework — The National Security and Investment Regime

The principal statute governing foreign investment approvals in the UK today is:

National Security and Investment Act 2021 (NSIA)

Introduced to provide the UK Government with powers to review, intervene, impose conditions on, or block transactions that may pose national security risks, irrespective of their size or value.

Came into force on 4 January 2022, replacing limited previous powers under competition law with a standalone regime focused on national security.

Key duties on investors under the NSIA:

Mandatory notification: Certain acquisitions involving control over UK businesses in sensitive sectors (e.g., defence, AI, energy) must be notified to the Government before closing.

Standstill obligation: Deal cannot close until clearance is obtained.

Offences & sanctions: Closing without approval makes the transaction void, and investors/ directors may face criminal and civil penalties (imprisonment up to 5 years; fines up to £10m or 5% of turnover).

Information duties: Investors must provide information when required by the Investment Security Unit (ISU).

⚖️ Unlike older UK merger control, the NSIA is sector‑based rather than value‑based; even small investments in sensitive sectors can be reviewable.

📌 2. Purpose of the Regime

The scheme prioritises national security over purely economic considerations. Government may:

Approve

Impose conditions

Block or unwind a transaction
if a risk to national security is found. 
This is not a general investment encouragement mechanism but a security screening regime balancing openness with precaution.

📌 3. Case Law — Implementation and Judicial Review (2022–2025)

While the NSIA is new, UK courts are already shaping how judicial reviews of investment screening decisions work:

🎯 1. FTDI Holding Ltd v Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (2025)

High Court (Admin) upheld a final order under the NSIA requiring divestment of shares by a Chinese‑linked company in a UK semiconductor business.

Key points from the judgment:

Government’s decision to require divestment was lawful and proportionate to national security risk.

Investors’ procedural fairness arguments failed (i.e., adequate opportunity to respond was given).

Court showed deference to executive assessment of national security concerns.

This is one of the first substantive judicial reviews of a modern UK foreign investment screening decision.

📌 Significance:
Demonstrates that courts are highly deferential to ministerial national security judgments, and procedural defects often won’t invalidate government decisions if the core security rationale is sound and parties were able to participate meaningfully.

🎯 2. LetterOne (Upp) Judicial Review (2024–2025)

In the UK’s first judicial review of a NSIA final order, the High Court similarly rejected a challenge to an order requiring a Russian‑linked investor to divest a UK fibre broadband business (Upp).

📌 Significance:
Reinforces the judicial approach that NSIA decisions are scrutinised on procedural fairness and legality, not on the merits of national security risk itself.

📌 4. Relevant Administrative Law Principles in FDI Context

Although not directly NSIA cases, UK administrative law principles underpin judicial review of investment screening decisions:

⚖️ Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1984] UKHL 9

Holds that government decisions can be subjected to judicial review, even on national security grounds, but courts often defer heavily when national security is involved.

⚖️ Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147

Establishes that errors of law in government decisions render them nullities, and courts retain jurisdiction despite purported statutory bars on review. 
💡 Important because NSIA decisions can be challenged on grounds like illegality or procedural unfairness.

📌 5. Other Case Law Influencing FDI Screening Review

Though not foreign‑investment decisions per se, these cases set ground rules for judicial oversight:

📌 6. Examples of Government Use of the Regime

Although not judicial decisions, they reflect how the regime affects foreign investment:

The Government has blocked or unwound some deals and cleared others with conditions, especially in semiconductors, defence, and energy sectors.

Proposals to require takeovers of water utilities to be screened illustrate ongoing policy evolution.

📌 7. Practical Duties for Investors

What investors must do in practice:

✔️ Identify whether an investment is reviewable

Does it give control of a UK entity operating in sensitive sectors?

✔️ Notify Government before completing the transaction

If it falls within the mandatory notification list, a standstill obligation applies.

✔️ Respond to ISU information requests

Failure to comply is an offence.

✔️ Prepare for potential government intervention

Government may accept, impose safeguards, or prohibit the deal.

✔️ Understand judicial review limits

If a decision is adverse, challenges go to public law grounds (e.g., unfair process, illegality), not merits of risk.

📌 Conclusion

In the UK, foreign investment approval duties are primarily about national security screening under the NSIA rather than a general economic approval system. Investors must carefully assess whether their planned transaction triggers mandatory notification, and understand that the Government’s power to intervene is broad and courts will generally defer on national security issues. Case law under the NSIA is still evolving, but early judgments show strong deference to government decisions on security and rigorous review of process and legality rather than substance when those decisions are challenged.

RELATED Blog

Corporate Law at Afghanistan

Corporate Law at Albania

Corporate Law at Algeria

Corporate Law at American Samoa (US)

Corporate Law at Bangladesh

Corporate Law at Andorra

Corporate Law at Angola

Corporate Law at Antigua and Barbuda

Corporate Law at Anguilla (BOT)

Corporate Law at Argentina