Expert Witness Journal Issue 63 October 2025 - Flipbook - Page 66
and direct rights of enforcement. This will be
discussed at greater length in a future article as the
topic is detailed and complex.
not be released without judicial approval, ensuring
compliance with sanctions.
The judgment highlights the intersection of
procedural fairness, international sanctions, and
litigation strategy, reinforcing the importance of
timely compliance and robust evidence in security
for costs related applications.
Recent cases
Craft Development SCI v Actis LLP & Ors
The defendants, Actis, sought security for costs
against the claimant, Craft Development SCI, a
Cameroonian company suing over a failed joint
venture to develop the Douala Mall. The claimant,
represented by its provisional administrator, alleged
breach of contract, conspiracy, and fraud after Actis
partnered with a di昀昀erent entity to complete the
project.
Summary and strategic considerations
Security for costs is a vital tool in civil litigation,
balancing the interests of justice with 昀椀nancial
prudence. The principles established in case law
underscore the importance of strategic litigation
planning.
Actis argued that Craft was impecunious and
unlikely to pay costs if unsuccessful. Craft countered
that a security order would sti昀氀e the claim, as its
minority shareholder, had exhausted personal
resources funding litigation.
Practitioners must be vigilant in assessing the
昀椀nancial and jurisdictional risks posed by claimants
including both political / judicial realities in foreign
nations, but also potentially wider geopolitical
realities as demonstrated in Agro昀椀rma Oniks LLC &
Ors v ABH Ukraine Limited & Ors.
Mrs Justice Stacey found that while Craft had
disclosed substantial 昀椀nancial hardship, gaps
remained in its evidence, particularly regarding
future litigation funding and potential support
from associates. The judge concluded it was just
to order security, but reduced the amount from
the £1.6 million sought to £300,000, highlighting
the balancing act the courts will perform when
evaluating the risk of sti昀氀ing the claim against the
defendant’s potential exposure.
Applications for security for costs should be made
promptly, supported by robust evidence, and tailored
to the speci昀椀c circumstances of the case. Conversely,
claimants opposing such applications must provide
clear, credible evidence to demonstrate that their
claim would be sti昀氀ed or that adequate security
already exists. Craft Development SCI v Actis LLP &
Ors in particular emphasises the need for full and
frank disclosure by the claimant on this point.
Agro昀椀rma Oniks LLC & Ors v ABH Ukraine Limited
& Ors
Applications for security for costs are also a valid
strategic consideration. While courts are keen to
ensure that such applications do not have a sti昀氀ing
e昀昀ect on legitimate cases, they are an e昀昀ective
means of forcing the claimant to confront the
realities of its situation. In particular, applications
for security for costs (or at least the threat thereof)
can be applied at various ‘pressure points’ during
litigation. For instance, if the claimant is likely to
soon begin the process of a costly exercise such as
instructing expert witnesses and counsel for trial, a
well-timed security for costs application may well be
able to enhance 昀椀nancial pressure to a point where
a claimant is prepared to re-consider its views on
settling the matter.
This case involved a dispute over loan participation
notes issued by EMIS Finance BV to fund loans to
ABH Ukraine Ltd (ABHU). The claimants sought an
extension of time to provide security for costs, citing
di昀케culties transferring funds from Ukraine due to
sanctions a昀昀ecting ABHU and perceived links to
EMIS.
Previously, the court had ordered the claimants
to pay £500,000 in security by 25 July 2025 or face
restrictions on submitting evidence in jurisdictional
challenges. Despite initial agreement on holding
funds via Field昀椀sher LLP, the claimants requested
a 昀椀ve-week extension, citing their bank’s refusal
to transfer funds potentially bene昀椀ting sanctioned
entities.
In an era of increasing cross-border litigation,
decreasing global stability and third-party funding,
understanding the nuances of security for costs is
essential. Parties must remain attuned to not only
legal developments but also geopolitical realities,
ensuring that their litigation strategies are not only
legally sound but are pragmatically grounded and
commercially viable.
Mr Justice Bright acknowledged the genuine
di昀케culty, but criticized the claimants’ delay and lack
of detailed evidence. He granted a limited extension
to 14 August 2025, increasing the security amount
to £580,000 to cover additional costs. The court
emphasized that funds held by Field昀椀sher would
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
64
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2025
