Agrofirma Oniks LLC & Anor v ABH Ukraine Limited & Ors

When extending time for security for costs, the court must balance the applicant’s real difficulty in complying with the order against the need to protect the opposing parties and preserve the efficient determination of the proceedings.

Where the evidence does not establish how much additional time is required, the court may set a short, practical extension by reference to the existing hearing timetable rather than the applicant’s unproved estimate. The court may maintain an unless order preventing the applicant from adducing evidence if security is not provided, and may increase the security to cover costs incurred by the extension application.

The claim concerned loan participation notes and related advice. The First and Second Defendants had made applications under CPR Part 11 challenging the court’s jurisdiction.

On 4 July 2025, the court adjourned those applications, directed the Claimants to serve responsive evidence, and ordered them to provide £500,000 security for costs by 25 July 2025. Failure to provide security would prevent the Claimants from adducing evidence in response to the jurisdiction applications.

The Claimants applied on 25 July 2025 for an extension. They relied on difficulties transferring funds from Ukraine because of sanctions affecting ABHU and the perceived relationship between ABHU and EMIS. The central issue was the appropriate extension and consequential directions.

1. The application was granted in part. The court accepted that the Claimants faced a genuine difficulty transferring funds from Ukraine to Fieldfisher for use as security. The difficulty was not of their making, although they could and should have foreseen and addressed it earlier.

2. The evidence did not establish how many additional days were required. The court therefore fixed the extension by reference to the existing hearing of the jurisdiction applications on 4 September 2025. The revised deadline for security was 16:30 on 14 August 2025. The related deadlines were also revised: Claimants’ evidence by 14:00 on 15 August; responsive evidence by 10:00 on 1 September; bundles by 16:00 on 1 September; and skeleton arguments by 14:00 on 2 September.

3. The unless consequence in the order of 4 July remained in force. Unless security was provided by the revised deadline, the Claimants would not be permitted to serve or adduce evidence in response to the jurisdiction applications.

4. The security was increased from £250,000 to £290,000 for each of ABHU and EMIS, £580,000 in total. The increase reflected the Defendants’ costs of the present application, which were awarded on the indemnity basis and were to be secured.

5. The parties’ agreed arrangement for Fieldfisher to hold the funds under an undertaking was accepted. The funds were to remain with Fieldfisher unless and until the court made a further order after giving all parties an opportunity to make submissions. No funds could be released to a person affected by sanctions without the court’s approval.

Not stated in the judgment.