Case comment: Bestfort Developments LLP v Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority [2016] EWCA Civ 1099

Case comment: Bestfort Developments LLP v Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority [2016] EWCA Civ 1099

Principle: The correct test on an application for security for costs under CPR r25.13(2)(a), against a party that is not resident in a Convention state, is whether on objectively justified grounds there is a real risk that that the defendant would not be able to enforce a costs order against the claimant, and that it is just in all the circumstances to make an order for security. The test is not whether there is “likely” to be a substantial obstacle or burden to enforcement. The hurdle for an applicant for security for costs against a non-resident party is therefore lower, after the Court of Appeal’s decision to allow this appeal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>