Susana Ferrín, acting for Fifth and Sixth Defendants at the hearing before Mansfield J, successfully obtained an order for security for costs in the amount of £252,000 (inclusive of VAT) against the Claimant, Mehul Choksi, in his challenge for conspiracy, false imprisonment, unlawful detention and/or assault and battery.

The Claimant brought the claim against six Defendants, all of whom he alleges conspired to kidnap him with the common design to unlawfully render him to India, where he is wanted by the Government of India to be tried for economic crimes alleged against him.

On 18 December 2025, Mansfield J heard the two security for costs applications made by the Second and Fourth Defendants, and the Fifth and Sixth Defendants. The Defendants were seeking security for their costs up to the conclusion of the five-day hearing in Michaelmas term 2026 of the jurisdiction and state immunity applications as directed by Freedman J at the Preliminary Review hearing on 16 June 2025.

Both applications were made before the changes to CPR 25, which came into effect in April 2025, but were argued under the new rules in CPR r25.27. Under CPR r25.27, the court may make an order for security for costs: (a) if it is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that it is just to make such an order; and (b) one or more of the conditions set out in CPR 25.27(b)(i) to (vi) is satisfied.

The gateway relied on by the Defendants was the fact that the Claimant is resident out of the jurisdiction (CPR r25.27(b)(i)). This was common ground and therefore, the issue was “whether the Court is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that it is just to make such an order” (CPR r25.27(a)).

At the hearing, a preliminary issue was raised objecting to the Claimant raising arguments as to the merits of the claim inter alia because the Defendants did not want to take a step that might be taken as a submission to the jurisdiction. The Court was thus invited to rule either that merits arguments would not be addressed, or that there be restrictions on publicity in relation to any judgment. These were rejected by the Court, as “Mr Fitzgerald KC offered an undertaking on behalf of his client, that the Claimant would not argue that any Defendant had submitted to the jurisdiction by making submissions as to the merits of the claim in the course of these applications” (paragraph [11] of the judgment).

Consequently, the submissions made on behalf of the Defendants focused on: (1) the substantive merits of the claim and the jurisdiction and state immunity issues (see paragraphs [30]-[49] of the judgment); (2) the risk of non-enforcement of an order for costs against the Claimant (see paragraphs [50]-[52] of the judgment) of the judgment); and (3) the Claimant’s ability to provide security and continue the claim (see paragraphs [17], [53]-[55] of the judgment).

Ultimately, Mansfield J concluded that it would be just to make an order for security for costs because: (1) “This is not one of those rare cases where it can be seen that there is a high probability of success, either on the preliminary issues or at trial”; (2) “There is a real risk that an order for costs against the Claimant would not be capable of enforcement; and (3) The Court was not satisfied that “the claim would be stifled” if security was ordered (paragraph [56] of the judgment).

Ramby de Mello of No5 Barristers’ Chambers is leading Susana Ferrín in the full legal challenge. They are instructed by Galwinder Singh Kang of Murria Solicitors. 

Link to the full judgment: Mehul Choksi v The Government of India and others [2026] EWHC 217 (KB).

The citation of Freedman J’s judgment is as follows: Mehul Choksi v The Government of India and others [2025] EWHC 1739 (KB).