Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority & Ors v Bestfort Development LLP & Ors [2015] EWHC 2926 (Ch) (16 October 2015)

Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority & Ors v Bestfort Development LLP & Ors [2015] EWHC 2926 (Ch) (16 October 2015)

Security for costs cannot be ordered against the claimants solely on the basis of their residence outside the EU/EEA/UK unless there are objectively justified grounds relating to enforcement difficulties. The evidence did not establish a likelihood of substantial obstacles to enforcement in Georgia, and the claimants' undertakings further reduced any risk. Ordering security would be discriminatory under Nasser.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 2926 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority; Claimant/respondent: Ras Al Khaimah Investment and Development Office; Claimant/respondent: Rakeen Development PJSC-FZC; Claimant/respondent: Rakeen Development LLC; Claimant/respondent: Rakeen Uptown Development LLC; Claimant/respondent: Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority Georgia LLC; Defendant/applicant: Bestfort Development LLP; Defendant/applicant: Manline Projects LLP; Defendant/applicant: Bellcrown Alliance LLP; Defendant/applicant: Labbey Development LLP; Defendant/applicant: Tecberg Projects LLP; Defendant/applicant: Montbury LLP; Defendant/applicant: Hornberg Solutions LLP; Defendant/applicant: Worldfound Universal LLP; Defendant/applicant: Raystar Trade LLP; Defendant/applicant: Bontrade LLP; Defendant/applicant: Sonland Transit LLP; Defendant/applicant: QB Enterprise LLP; Defendant/applicant: The Sollutions Alliance LLP; Defendant/applicant: Luxtron Worldwide LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs Under CPR 25.12 and 25.13(2)(a) / Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Discrimination in Civil Procedure, Worldwide Freezing Orders, Receivership
Civil Procedure International Enforcement Commercial Law Security for Costs Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Discrimination in Civil Procedure Worldwide Freezing Orders Receivership

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority

Claimant/respondent

Ras Al Khaimah Investment and Development Office

Claimant/respondent

Rakeen Development PJSC-FZC

Claimant/respondent

Rakeen Development LLC

Claimant/respondent

Rakeen Uptown Development LLC

Claimant/respondent

Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority Georgia LLC

Claimant/respondent

Bestfort Development LLP

Defendant/applicant

Manline Projects LLP

Defendant/applicant

Bellcrown Alliance LLP

Defendant/applicant

Labbey Development LLP

Defendant/applicant

Tecberg Projects LLP

Defendant/applicant

Montbury LLP

Defendant/applicant

Hornberg Solutions LLP

Defendant/applicant

Worldfound Universal LLP

Defendant/applicant

Raystar Trade LLP

Defendant/applicant

Bontrade LLP

Defendant/applicant

Sonland Transit LLP

Defendant/applicant

QB Enterprise LLP

Defendant/applicant

The Sollutions Alliance LLP

Defendant/applicant

Luxtron Worldwide LLP

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs Under CPR 25.12 and 25.13(2)(a) / Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against non-EU/EEA/UK resident claimants under CPR 25.13(2)(a)
  2. 2 Whether there are objectively justified grounds for discrimination based on residence outside EU/EEA/UK
  3. 3 Whether enforcement of an English costs order in Georgia or RAK would face substantial obstacles

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs cannot be ordered against the claimants solely on the basis of their residence outside the EU/EEA/UK unless there are objectively justified grounds relating to enforcement difficulties. The evidence did not establish a likelihood of substantial obstacles to enforcement in Georgia, and the claimants' undertakings further reduced any risk. Ordering security would be discriminatory under Nasser.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • No order for security for costs
  • No tailored security order made