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

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

The correct evidential threshold for granting security for costs under CPR r 25.13(2)(a) is the existence of a real risk of unenforceability, not likelihood on the balance of probabilities. Discrimination based on residence under Article 14 ECHR requires rational justification, and a real risk test provides such justification. The lower courts applied the wrong test by requiring likelihood; the appeal is allowed and security for costs is ordered.

Parties
Appellants: Bestfort Developments LLP and Others; Respondents: Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; security for costs ordered.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Discrimination, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Threshold Test for Security, CPR R 25.13, Article 14 ECHR
Civil Procedure Human Rights Security for Costs Discrimination Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Threshold Test for Security CPR R 25.13 Article 14 ECHR

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bestfort Developments LLP and Others

Appellants

Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct evidential threshold for granting security for costs under CPR r 25.13(2)(a) against claimants resident in non-Convention states?
  2. 2 Does CPR r 25.13(2)(a) discriminate on grounds of residence or nationality under Article 14 ECHR?
  3. 3 What justification is required for differential treatment of non-Convention state residents in access to justice?

Ratio Decidendi

The correct evidential threshold for granting security for costs under CPR r 25.13(2)(a) is the existence of a real risk of unenforceability, not likelihood on the balance of probabilities. Discrimination based on residence under Article 14 ECHR requires rational justification, and a real risk test provides such justification. The lower courts applied the wrong test by requiring likelihood; the appeal is allowed and security for costs is ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; security for costs ordered.

Orders

  • Appellants to have their costs of proceedings before the Master and judge.
  • Respondents/claimants to provide security for costs of section 25 appeal in the sum of £192,062.52.