Soprim Construction v Republic of Djibouti: when does a joined party become a "defendant" for security for costs?

In Soprim Construction SARL v The Republic of Djibouti [2026] EWHC 418 (Comm), Mr Justice Waksman dismissed an application by DP World Djibouti Fzco ("DPW") for security for costs against Soprim Construction Sarl ("Soprim"), holding that DPW did not qualify as a "defendant to any claim" under CPR 25.26(1) and that the court therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application.

Soprim holds arbitral awards against the Republic of Djibouti worth in excess of US$135 million, obtained following a sustained campaign of persecution against the company and its general manager by the Djiboutian state. An interim charging order had been granted over monies held by Doraleh Container Terminal S.A. ("DCT") at Standard Chartered Bank in London, on the basis that the Republic was their beneficial owner notwithstanding DCT's status as account holder. DPW, a minority shareholder in DCT but one with extensive contractual control rights over it, was joined to the proceedings as an objecting party after opposing the making of a final charging order. Both DPW and DCT submitted a joint defence denying Soprim's trust and control claim.

The jurisdiction question

The central issue was whether DPW, having been joined to resist the charging order, was a "defendant to any claim" within the meaning of CPR 25.26. Soprim did not dispute that a relevant "claim" existed but challenged DPW's status as defendant to it.

Waksman J surveyed the authorities, from Taly International v Terra Nova Insurance [1985] through to New Lottery Company v The Gambling Commission [2025], distilling the following principles. The analysis must proceed by reference to substance rather than form; neither participation in proceedings nor joinder as an interested party is, without more, determinative. The inquiry is highly contextual, requiring examination of the nature and purpose of the underlying claim, the target of that claim, and the nature and purpose of the applicant's joinder. The notion of compulsion — central to Millett LJ's reasoning in Bowring v Corsi [1995] — retains analytical force, but is most usefully reframed as whether joinder was objectively necessary rather than merely subjectively desirable.

Application to DPW

Applying those principles, the judge found that the target of Soprim's claim was plainly the Republic, not DPW, whose assets were not in issue. Crucially, DCT — which shared DPW's interests entirely and had submitted a joint defence — was itself an objecting party. Given DCT's presence, it was objectively questionable whether DPW's joinder had been necessary at all. The existence of a separate co-objector advancing identical arguments significantly undermined DPW's claim to defendant status.

Re Dalnyaya Doroga [2017], on which DPW relied, was distinguished: there, the liquidator's sole purpose in seeking recognition had been to deploy statutory powers directly against the very parties who subsequently sought security. No equivalent targeting of DPW existed here.

Discretion

Although the question of discretion was rendered academic by the jurisdictional finding, Waksman J indicated that he would in any event have declined to exercise it in DPW's favour. DPW had always had practical means to procure payment of the outstanding 2017 dividend from the SCB accounts, having maintained control of the authorised signatories, but had chosen not to act. Having remained content to benefit from the preserving effect of Soprim's worldwide freezing order, DPW could not readily claim that involvement in these proceedings had been thrust upon it.

The application was accordingly dismissed.

Copyright & permissions