UK High Court Claim by Mehul Choksi Struck Out After Failure to Pay Security for Costs

London: The High Court claim brought by fugitive diamantaire Mehul Choksi over his alleged 2021 "kidnapping" has been struck out on 20 July 2026 against all the defendants, after Choksi failed to comply with a court order requiring him to deposit £677,000 in security for the defendants' legal costs.

Choksi has also been ordered to pay the four defendants' legal costs of the claim. These costs will be assessed on the "standard basis" meaning a court officer will determine a reasonable and proportionate amount.

Under a consent order signed on 20 July 2026 in the King's Bench Division, Choksi's claim against Gurdip Bath, Leslie Farrow-Guy, Gurmit Singh and Gurjit Singh Bhandal is struck out for failure to pay security in line with the judgment of Justice Mansfield dated 6 February 2026 and his subsequent order of 13 February 2026.

A one-day hearing listed for 29 July 2026 before Mr Justice Mansfield has been vacated, and an earlier order of Mr Justice Dexter Dias dated 18 May 2026 has been set aside.

The strike-out marks the collapse of the central plank of Choksi's case in London. Choksi, who is wanted in India in connection with the multi-billion-dollar Punjab National Bank fraud, had alleged that he was abducted from Antigua on 23 May 2021, assaulted, and taken by boat to Dominica as part of a conspiracy he claimed was orchestrated from England. He sued the Government of India and five individuals.

His claim ran into serious difficulty in February, when Mr Justice Mansfield ordered him to provide security for the defendants' costs. In a detailed judgment, the judge found that Choksi's allegations rested largely on circumstantial material, observing that there was “no witness evidence” of the alleged kidnapping and assault other than Choksi's own account.

On February 6, 2026, Justice Mansfield delivered a statement that highlighted, "There is no direct evidence of that. It is argued that it is plain as a matter of inference, given that the relevant Defendants are resident in England, and flew together to Antigua."

Justice Mansfield further underscored the lack of corroboration for the violent abduction Choksi described, stating, "Further, unsurprisingly, there is no witness evidence as to the kidnapping and assault of the Claimant, other than that of the Claimant himself. As is typical of conspiracy cases, much of the evidence is circumstantial and the existence and detail of the conspiracy is said to arise as a matter of inference."

The court noted that the Antiguan police report and private investigator's statement on which he relied were built substantially on second-hand accounts. The judge also referred to rulings of the Belgian courts, including the Court of Cassation, which had likewise found no evidence that Choksi was abducted by agents acting for the Indian state.

Despite claiming damages of £200,000, Choksi faced a security requirement several times that figure, a sum he ultimately failed to pay, triggering the strike-out by consent.

The outcome will be read as a significant vindication for the defendants, who have consistently denied any involvement in the alleged abduction, and it removes a case in which Choksi had accused the governments of Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica of complicity, an allegation the English court noted was never actually pleaded against either government. Both jurisdictions have long maintained that Choksi's kidnapping narrative was a device to frustrate his extradition to India, where he faces trial for economic offences.

Choksi remains the subject of extradition proceedings in Belgium, where he was arrested in 2025, and continues to contest his designation as a fugitive economic offender in India.