Craft Development SCI v Actis LLP & Ors (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 1355 (KB) (04 June 2025)

Craft Development SCI v Actis LLP & Ors (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 1355 (KB) (04 June 2025)

Security for costs is ordered because, although Craft and Mr Tchumtchoua are impecunious, they failed to fully discharge the burden of proving stifling due to gaps in disclosure regarding funding sources and future litigation funding. However, the amount of security is set at £300,000, significantly less than sought, as a higher sum would stifle the claim. The court balanced the prejudice to both parties and set security at the maximum affordable by the claimant without making compliance impossible.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1355 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Craft Development SCI (suing by its provisional administrator Mr Ngoua Elembe Hiob); Defendant: Actis LLP; Defendant: Actis Africa Real Estate Fund 3 aka Actis Africa Real Estate 3 LP; Defendant: Actis Africa Real Estate 3A LP aka Actis Africa Real Estate Fund 3; Defendant: Actis Africa Real Estate 3 Co-Investment Scheme LP aka Actis Africa Real Estate Fund 3; Defendant: Actis Africa Real Estate 3C LP aka Actis Africa Real Estate Fund 3; Defendant: Actis GP LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Application (interlocutory) / Post Defence, Pre Trial, After Disclosure, Before Exchange of Witness and Expert Evidence
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Impecuniosity, Stifling of Claim, Discretionary Relief, Delay in Application, Merits of Claim, Alternative Remedies
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Impecuniosity Stifling of Claim Discretionary Relief Delay in Application Merits of Claim +1 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Craft Development SCI (suing by its provisional administrator Mr Ngoua Elembe Hiob)

Claimant

Actis LLP

Defendant

Actis Africa Real Estate Fund 3 aka Actis Africa Real Estate 3 LP

Defendant

Actis Africa Real Estate 3A LP aka Actis Africa Real Estate Fund 3

Defendant

Actis Africa Real Estate 3 Co-Investment Scheme LP aka Actis Africa Real Estate Fund 3

Defendant

Actis Africa Real Estate 3C LP aka Actis Africa Real Estate Fund 3

Defendant

Actis GP LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Security for Costs Application (interlocutory) / Post Defence, Pre Trial, After Disclosure, Before Exchange of Witness and Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against an impecunious claimant under CPR 25.27(b)(ii)
  2. 2 Whether such an order would stifle the claim
  3. 3 Quantum and manner of security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs is ordered because, although Craft and Mr Tchumtchoua are impecunious, they failed to fully discharge the burden of proving stifling due to gaps in disclosure regarding funding sources and future litigation funding. However, the amount of security is set at £300,000, significantly less than sought, as a higher sum would stifle the claim. The court balanced the prejudice to both parties and set security at the maximum affordable by the claimant without making compliance impossible.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Craft to provide security for costs in the sum of £300,000 in three staged payments aligned with expert evidence timetable.
  • Details of manner and timing of security to be agreed between parties or determined by the court upon written submissions.