On 27 February 2026, Mr Justice Waksman handed down judgment in Soprim Construction Sarl v The Republic of Djibouti & ors [2026] EWHC 418 (Comm).
The judgment concerns an application for security for costs by an objecting party to a charging order, DP World Djibouti FZCO (‘DP World’).
The security application was made against the Claimant, Soprim, who in 2019 had commenced the proceedings by enforcing certain arbitration awards against the Defendant state (the ‘Republic’). Those awards were obtained after lengthy litigation involving the Republic, following high-profile claims made against Mr Abdourahman Boreh (Soprim’s general manager) rejected by Flaux J in 2016: The Republic of Djibouti & ors v Boreh & ors [2016] EWHC 405 (Comm).
In February 2025, Soprim obtained an interim charging order against the Republic over certain monies held in London bank accounts. The London bank accounts are held in the name of another party, Doraleh Container Terminal SA (‘DCT’). Soprim’s primary case is that DCT holds the monies on trust for the benefit of the Republic, due to various steps taken by the Republic since late 2017.
At a preliminary hearing in June 2025, the interim charging order was continued and a trial was directed for June 2026 on whether the interim charging order should be made final or, as DP World contends, be set aside. DP World’s application for security was issued thereafter and sought security of over £1m.
The Judge rejected the security application on both jurisdictional and discretionary grounds. In particular, the Judge held that DP World was not a ‘defendant’ to any ‘claim’ within the meaning of CPR 25.26, which provides: ‘A defendant to any claim may apply for security for their costs of the proceedings’.
The judgment contains a helpful survey of the leading authorities on the issue of the Court’s jurisdiction to order security. At [82], the Judge summarised the principles to be applied when the Court is asked to determine an issue as to whether the applicant for security for costs is a ‘defendant’. That included, at [82(2)], that ‘the fact that an applicant satisfies any particular test for being joined (for example because it has interests which are or may be affected by the proceedings) does not entail without more that it is a “defendant”.’
The Judge further held that, if the Court had jurisdiction, he would not have exercised it to award any security because DP World could have avoided the current situation whereby it considered it necessary to join the proceedings ([98]-[105]); and the position was ‘somewhat akin to the situation where there are competing creditors in relation to the assets concerned’ ([106]-[107]).
Permission to appeal was refused by the Judge on 3 March 2026.
A copy of the judgment can be found here.
Tim Akkouh KC and Edward Mordaunt (assisted by Ellen Tims) appeared for Soprim, instructed by Adam Zoubir, Rob Salek and Nitisha Acharya of Harcus Parker Limited.
