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

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

The correct threshold test for ordering security for costs against claimants resident outside the jurisdiction is likelihood of enforcement difficulties, not merely a real risk. The Master applied the correct legal standard and did not err in principle or fail to consider relevant matters. The appeal is dismissed.

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 KAHIMAH INVESTMENT AUTHORITY GEORGIA LLC; Defendant/appellant: BESTFORT DEVELOPMENT LLP; Defendant/appellant: MANLINE PROJECTS LLP; Defendant/appellant: BELLCROWN ALLIANCE LLP; Defendant/appellant: LABBEY DEVELOPMENT LLP; Defendant/appellant: TECBERG PROJECTS LLP; Defendant/appellant: MONTBURY LLP; Defendant/appellant: HORNBERG SOLUTIONS LLP; Defendant/appellant: WORLDFOUND UNIVERSAL LLP; Defendant/appellant: RAYSTAR TRADE LLP; Defendant/appellant: BONTRADE LLP; Defendant/appellant: SONLAND TRANSIT LLP; Defendant/appellant: QB ENTERPRISE LLP; Defendant/appellant: THE SOLUTIONS ALLIANCE LLP; Defendant/appellant: LUXTRON WORLDWIDE LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 / Appeal Against Dismissal of Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Discrimination Under ECHR, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Threshold Test for Security for Costs
Civil Procedure International Civil Litigation Security for Costs Discrimination Under ECHR Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Threshold Test for Security for Costs

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
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 KAHIMAH INVESTMENT AUTHORITY GEORGIA LLC

Claimant/respondent

BESTFORT DEVELOPMENT LLP

Defendant/appellant

MANLINE PROJECTS LLP

Defendant/appellant

BELLCROWN ALLIANCE LLP

Defendant/appellant

LABBEY DEVELOPMENT LLP

Defendant/appellant

TECBERG PROJECTS LLP

Defendant/appellant

MONTBURY LLP

Defendant/appellant

HORNBERG SOLUTIONS LLP

Defendant/appellant

WORLDFOUND UNIVERSAL LLP

Defendant/appellant

RAYSTAR TRADE LLP

Defendant/appellant

BONTRADE LLP

Defendant/appellant

SONLAND TRANSIT LLP

Defendant/appellant

QB ENTERPRISE LLP

Defendant/appellant

THE SOLUTIONS ALLIANCE LLP

Defendant/appellant

LUXTRON WORLDWIDE LLP

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 / Appeal Against Dismissal of Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct threshold test for ordering security for costs against claimants resident outside the jurisdiction?
  2. 2 Did the Master err in applying the likelihood test rather than a real risk test?
  3. 3 Did the Master fail to consider relevant matters or consider irrelevant matters in dismissing the application for security for costs?

Ratio Decidendi

The correct threshold test for ordering security for costs against claimants resident outside the jurisdiction is likelihood of enforcement difficulties, not merely a real risk. The Master applied the correct legal standard and did not err in principle or fail to consider relevant matters. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • permission to appeal granted on grounds 1 and 2 but appeal dismissed on both grounds
  • permission to appeal refused on ground 3