Russian Operator Policy Claims, In the Matter Of [2026] EWHC 542 (Comm) (26 February 2026)

Russian Operator Policy Claims, In the Matter Of [2026] EWHC 542 (Comm) (26 February 2026)

The evidence provided by the Deep Sky Claimants is insufficient to establish that an order for security for costs would stifle their claims; the corporate structure and history of funding from parent companies undermine the stifling argument. Security for costs is appropriate and just under CPR 25.7 given the claimants' inability to pay costs if ordered.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 542 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Deep Sky Holdings Limited Claimants; Defendant: CMS Defendants; Defendant: Kennedys Defendants; Defendant: War Risk Defendants (including HFW WR Defendants, CMS War Risk Defendants, Shoosmiths Defendants)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Commercial Litigation / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Security for costs ordered against Deep Sky Claimants
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Corporate Structure, Litigation Funding, Impecuniosity, Discretion Under CPR 25.7
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Corporate Structure Litigation Funding Impecuniosity Discretion Under CPR 25.7

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deep Sky Holdings Limited Claimants

Claimant

CMS Defendants

Defendant

Kennedys Defendants

Defendant

War Risk Defendants (including HFW WR Defendants, CMS War Risk Defendants, Shoosmiths Defendants)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Litigation / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the Deep Sky Claimants
  2. 2 Whether such an order would stifle the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence provided by the Deep Sky Claimants is insufficient to establish that an order for security for costs would stifle their claims; the corporate structure and history of funding from parent companies undermine the stifling argument. Security for costs is appropriate and just under CPR 25.7 given the claimants' inability to pay costs if ordered.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered against Deep Sky Claimants

Orders

  • Deep Sky Claimants to provide security for costs in the amounts sought by War Risk Defendants: Shoosmiths Defendants £1,619,000; HFW WR Defendants £1,339,000; CMS War Risk Defendants £2,086,000