QB-2022-000681 - [2025] EWHC 2744 (KB)

(A)​ The Applications

On 20 June 2025 the Claimant issued an application to vary the order made on 4 June 2025 by Stacey J “to include the payment of security by way of a suitable After the Event Insurance, or by any other acceptable guarantee or other mechanism” (“the 20 June 2025 application”).

On 4 July 2025 the Defendants issued an application that “(i) pursuant to CPR 3.1.(3)(a) and (b), unless the Claimant has given security in respect of the sum set out in paragraph 2.1 of the Order of Mrs Justice Stacey by 25 July 2025 the claim will be struck out and (ii) the proceedings be stayed, pursuant to CPR 3.1(2)(g)”. On 24 September 2025, Yip J (as she then was) gave leave to the Defendants to amend their application “to include the non-payments alleged.” Permission was given to file an amended application notice which was duly filed. That application sought an order that “pursuant to CPR 3.1.(3)(a) and (b) unless the Claimant has given security by paying the sum of £232,000 by [21 days of the date of the order] the claim will be struck out” (“the 4 July 2025 application as amended”).

On 16 August 2025, the Claimant issued an application seeking an order striking out paragraph 44.3 of the Defence and that “[t]he Security for Costs Order made on 4 June 2025 be revoked pursuant to CPR 3.1(7); or alternatively, varied to reduce the amount of security by removing provision for a Cameroonian law expert”. The Claimant also sought orders, inter alia, that (i) the costs order made at the security for costs hearing be varied so that the Defendants pay the Claimant’s costs of that application on an indemnity basis; and (ii) the Defendants “indemnify the Claimant in respect of the premium incurred by the Claimant in taking out an ATE insurance policy for the sole purpose of complying with the Security for Costs Order dated 4 June 2025.” (“the 16 August 2025 application”).

In the witness statement in support of the 16 August 2025 application, the Claimant’s solicitor, Dr Mirande Nasah, stated that on 1 May 2025 the Defendants had disclosed “by inadvertence a notarial deed of the Promesse de Vente. This confirms that the document was validly executed in notarial form”. Dr Nasah argued that the “Defence pleas suggested that the Promesse de vente was invalid, which weakened the Claimant’s case on consideration at the security hearing. In fact, the notarial deed confirms that the Promesse de vente was valid, and the Claimant’s case has strong prospects of success”. Dr Nasah stated that “in those circumstances the order for security should be revoked, or alternatively varied to remove provision for expert evidence on Cameroonian law.”

On 19 September 2025, the Claimant issued a further application. In that application the Claimant sought an order varying “paragraph 3 of the order of Mr Justice Morris dated 21^st March 2024, so as to provide for the immediate detailed assessment of the Claimant’s costs [and] that the Claimant’s ATE insurance shall stand as sufficient security for costs in substitution for payment into the Court Funds Office or the provision of first-class bank guarantees to the Defendants’ solicitors” (“the 19 September 2025 application”).

By the time of the hearing, the Claimant’s position had changed as it had been unable to obtain ATE insurance and therefore it was not pursuing the 20 June 2025 application or those parts of the 16 August 2025 and 19 September 2025 applications that were concerned with ATE. Aspects of the other applications had been agreed. The parties agreed that the Defendants should file an Amended Defence removing paragraph 44.3(i). There was also agreement in principle between the parties that the sum ordered to be paid by way of security should be reduced to reflect the fact that experts in Cameroonian law would not need to be instructed. In the course of the hearing the parties agreed that the appropriate reduction should be £74,000. Thus, the issues for determination were:

Should the security for costs order made by Stacey J be revoked pursuant to CPR 3.1.7?

Should the costs order made by Morris J be varied pursuant to CPR 3.1.7?

Should an unless order be made requiring payment of the outstanding security for costs?