Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority & Ors v Bestfort Development LLP & Ors

Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority & Ors v Bestfort Development LLP & Ors

There is insufficient evidence of a likelihood of substantial obstacles to enforcement of a costs order in Georgia, where the RAK entities have significant assets and have offered undertakings. Therefore, ordering security for costs would be discriminatory and is not justified under the principles in Nasser.

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
Civil (interlocutory Application) / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Discrimination in Civil Procedure, Freezing Orders, Receivership
Civil Procedure Private International Law Security for Costs Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Discrimination in Civil Procedure 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

Civil (interlocutory Application) / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against non-EU, EEA, or UK resident applicants under CPR 25.13(2)(a)
  2. 2 Whether there are objectively justified grounds relating to enforcement difficulties to warrant security for costs
  3. 3 Whether ordering security would be discriminatory under the principles in Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait

Ratio Decidendi

There is insufficient evidence of a likelihood of substantial obstacles to enforcement of a costs order in Georgia, where the RAK entities have significant assets and have offered undertakings. Therefore, ordering security for costs would be discriminatory and is not justified under the principles in Nasser.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • LLPs' application for security for costs is dismissed