Mehul Choksi v The Government of India & Ors

Mehul Choksi v The Government of India & Ors

Security for costs was ordered because the claimant is resident abroad, there is a real risk of non-enforcement of costs orders, the merits do not demonstrate a high probability of success, and there is insufficient evidence that the claim would be stifled by the order.

Parties
Claimant: Mehul Choksi; First Defendant: The Government of India; Second Defendant: Gurdip Bath; Third Defendant: Barbara Jarabik; Fourth Defendant: Leslie Farrow-Guy; Fifth Defendant: Gurmit Singh; Sixth Defendant: Gurjit Singh Bhandal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 June 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Security for Costs Applications
Outcome
Security for costs ordered in favour of Second, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Defendants.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, State Immunity, Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens, False Imprisonment, Conspiracy, Assault and Battery
Civil Procedure Personal Injury International Law Security for Costs State Immunity Jurisdiction Forum Non Conveniens False Imprisonment +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mehul Choksi

Claimant

The Government of India

First Defendant

Gurdip Bath

Second Defendant

Barbara Jarabik

Third Defendant

Leslie Farrow-Guy

Fourth Defendant

Gurmit Singh

Fifth Defendant

Gurjit Singh Bhandal

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Security for Costs Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against a claimant resident abroad
  2. 2 Whether the merits of the claim preclude security for costs
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of non-enforcement of costs orders

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was ordered because the claimant is resident abroad, there is a real risk of non-enforcement of costs orders, the merits do not demonstrate a high probability of success, and there is insufficient evidence that the claim would be stifled by the order.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered in favour of Second, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Defendants.

Orders

  • Claimant to provide security for costs of £425,000 for Second and Fourth Defendants.
  • Claimant to provide security for costs of £252,000 for Fifth and Sixth Defendants.