UK High Court Slams Mehul Choksi, Orders to Deposit £677,000

The High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, on Friday ordered Indian fugitive businessman Mehul Choksi to deposit £677,000 with the court as security for costs in connection with a defamation action he initiated. The proceedings were filed against five individuals and the Government of India, arising from his alleged disappearance from Antigua and Barbuda.

The ruling followed applications by the defendants Gurmit Singh, Gurjit Bhandal, Leslie Farrow-Guy, and Gurdip Bath who sought an order requiring Mehul Choksi to provide security for costs.

The defendants argued that the deposit was necessary to ensure recovery of legal expenses in the event the claim is dismissed, particularly on jurisdictional grounds. The court is scheduled to determine in November 2026 whether it has jurisdiction for the matter to be heard in the United Kingdom. It is worth mentioning that the judgement by Justice Mansfield added that there is little, if anything to connect the events to England, other than Choksi’s statement that conspiracy was forged in England.

“There is no direct evidence of that,” the judgement further added. It also concluded, “There is no evidence one way or the other as to where the plan was hatched or furthered.” 

During a hearing held on 18 December 2025, legal representatives for both sides presented arguments on whether Mehul Choksi should be required to provide security for costs. The sum will be much higher if the court agrees to take the case to trial.

Should the court rule that the defamation claim can proceed in the United Kingdom, a separate and substantially higher security for costs application would follow. According to submissions made during the hearing, a full trial on the merits is expected to extend beyond 20 hearing days, potentially increasing total legal costs to an estimated £3 million to £4 million, depending on the scope and duration of the proceedings.

It is worth mentioning that, regardless of the total amount of expenses, Mehul Choksi will not receive any refunds. The money submitted to the court will not be returned, as his assets are already seized by the Indian government.

It is important to note here that the claimant alleges in his statements that the governments of Antigua and Dominica participated, convened or acquiesced in the kidnap; but the Justice Mansfield emphasised that “It is alleged that the governments of Antigua and Dominica participated, connived or acquiesced in the kidnap; though no claim is brought in these proceedings against either government,”.

The court statement further states that “claims against some of the defendants (at least) have reasonable prospects of success.” The court judgement before the bench of Justice Mansfield further adds, “I am not satisfied that there is a strong probability of success.”

Further, unsurprisingly, there is no witness evidence as to the kidnapping and assault of the claimant, other than that of the claimant himself, the judgement Justice Mansfield further added.

Surprisingly, Mehul Choksi is claiming £200,000, yet he has now been ordered to pay £677,000 as security, with the case expected to cost him significantly more. This clearly shows that he is spending far beyond the £200,000 he claims, raising questions about whether there is a different agenda behind pursuing this case.

From Mehul Choksi’s standpoint, his defamation claim is advanced on what his lawyers claim on the below given basic grounds.

1. Lawyers: One of the central arguments raised by his lawyer Edward Fitzgerald KC  and legal team relates to travel patterns involving the five defendants, whom they allege travelled to Antigua and Barbuda in two separate groups during April and May of 2021. Choksi’s counsel has questioned how the individuals could have travelled on similar flights if, as they maintain, they had no prior association with one another.
   
   This assertion was challenged by findings from a private investigative team led by former Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur CBE QPM. Notably, the team comprised experienced ex-Scotland Yard officers, who travelled to the Caribbean and stayed there for a period of one month to investigate the matter.
   
   Independent Investigation: Investigators recorded an interview with the travel agent responsible for booking the journeys, who stated that it is common within the travel industry for unrelated parties to travel to the same destination within a short timeframe for holidays, including on similar routes or flights. The agent explained that repeat or coinciding travel within a few months does not, in itself, indicate any personal or professional relationship between travellers and provided documentary examples of comparable booking patterns to support that position, especially at the time of COVID when the flight connectivity was limited to the world, mainly to countries such as Antigua, with carriers flying as less as once a week.

2. Another piece of evidence placed before the court comprised CCTV footage purporting to show Gurdip Bath entering a vehicle, with another unidentified individual standing nearby. The footage was relied upon by Mehul Choksi’s legal team as part of its case narrative.

Investigation: A forensic video analysis conducted by a United Kingdom based forensic team concluded that the quality of the footage was insufficient for reliable identification. According to the expert assessment, the resolution was too poor to establish critical details, including the vehicle’s registration number, which was not readable. While Mr Bath has acknowledged that the individual accompanying him was Leslie Farrow-Guy, the forensic experts stated that the video evidence itself does not allow any subject or identity to be determined with certainty. Moreover, the judgement copy also states that much of the evidence relied on for the claim is hearsay or opinion. “In some instances they offer their opinions as to what that evidence shows,” added the judgement.

3. As part of its third line of argument, the legal team representing Mehul Choksi has contended that, following his alleged kidnapping, three individuals, Bath, Barbara, and  Farrow-Guy held a meeting with Gaston Browne, the Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda.

Independent Investigation: This claim was examined by an independent investigative team, which verified with the Office of the Prime Minister that Mr Browne was not present in Antigua and Barbuda on the date in question. Records reviewed by investigators indicate that on 23 May 2021, Prime Minister Browne was in New York and later addressed the 74th World Health Assembly via zoom in Geneva.

4. The legal team for Mehul Choksi has further relied on a vehicle hire document relating to a car used by Leslie Farrow-Guy, which lists Gurmit Singh as an additional driver. Choksi’s lawyers have argued that the inclusion of Singh’s name on the document demonstrates prior acquaintance and coordination between the individuals concerned.

Investigation: This assertion was examined by the team, which reviewed records obtained directly from the car hire company with the assistance of forensic specialists. The investigation concluded that the hire agreement was a digitally generated document and that its contents had been modified on 29 May 2021. Forensic analysis indicated that Gurmit Singh’s details were inserted through a deliberate post-issuance edit. Here a question arises why the changes were made in the document more than a week after hiring a vehicle. Besides this, the driving number mentioned was also incorrect.

5. Another key element relied upon by Mehul Choksi is a police investigation report prepared by Inspector Adonis Henry of the Antigua and Barbuda Royal Police Force. The credibility of this report has been challenged following disclosures made by a fellow investigating officer, Cedric Williams, whose role in the investigation later came under scrutiny.

In a 15-page signed statement given to Oliver Laurence, Corporal Williams acknowledged that he had developed an inappropriate level of closeness with Priti Choksi during the course of the investigation. He stated that this relationship resulted in his removal from the case and raised concerns about the integrity of the investigative process. Senior officers within the police force, including the Police Commissioner and deputy commissioners, questioned the impartiality of the investigation in light of these admissions. In his statement, Corporal Williams said, “I was too close to Mrs. Choksi and her family in this matter and possibly telling her too much information,” an acknowledgment that has since been cited as undermining the reliability of the police report. The close relationship of Williams with Mehul Choksi’s wife raises concerns about potential bias, thereby discrediting the information. The same biased investigation led to the Interpol dropping their red corner charges against Mehul Choksi.

6. The legal team has also placed reliance on a settlement agreement executed in Dominica in relation to Mehul Choksi’s alleged illegal entry into the country. As part of that agreement, statements were signed by the Attorney General of Dominica, the Chief of Police of Dominica, the Director of Public Prosecutions of Dominica, and a serving police officer. The statement asserted that “the defendants, having reviewed certain documents and being satisfied that the claimant was forcibly brought from Antigua to Dominica and was accordingly not in Dominica by his own voluntary act.”

According to information placed before the investigating team, the circumstances surrounding these statements have been questioned, with indications that the individuals involved were personally threatened with defamation proceedings in connection with their official actions. It has been suggested that these pressures influenced their agreement to the wording of the settlement. Investigators have pointed to contemporaneous records, including the Roseau Police Station diary, which documents the manner and location of Choksi’s arrest, as primary evidence that contradicts the narrative reflected in the settlement statement. There were also five other officials, comprising customs and immigration officers, who gave their statements.

7. As part of its seventh argument, the legal team representing Mehul Choksi has asserted that a sailing vessel, Calliope of Arne, transported Choksi from Antigua and Barbuda to Dominica on 23 May 2021. This claim has been examined against official immigration and telecommunications records obtained by the investigative team.

According to records from the Antigua and Barbuda Immigration Department, the vessel departed Antigua at 10:09 a.m. on the same day. Investigators noted that Choksi is documented as having left his residence at approximately 5:00 p.m., nearly seven hours after the vessel had already departed. The investigative team further relied on mobile phone data indicating that on 23 May 2021, mobile handset Fernandes Fertinant (captain of Calliope of Arne) was connected to mobile towers in Guadeloupe at 5:47 p.m., reaching Dominica and connected with mobile towers there at about 11:07p.m. The timings further suggest that the vessel was already en-route towards Dominica at a time when Choksi had not yet left his home.

Additionally, Gaston Browne, Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda had made it clear in Antigua and Barbuda’s parliament that there is no evidence to support the claims made by Mehul Choksi that he was abducted. Besides this, Police Commissioner Atlee Rodney also gave media statements saying that there are no substantial evidence to support the claims made by Choksi.

Both maintained that available investigative material does not substantiate allegations of forcible removal from Antigua.

8. The investigative team during their probe also recovered a statement of Jamaican national who acknowledged that he was the individual responsible for transporting Mehul Choksi from Antigua to Dominica. According to investigators, this admission aligns with official immigration entry and exit records maintained by Antiguan authorities, which document Choksi’s movements during the relevant period. The statement has been cited as further corroboration of the travel timeline established through border control data.

9. WhatsApp chat records involving Barbara Jarabik were also shared with the investigative team. According to the assessment presented, the message exchanges show Mehul Choksi making repeated personal overtures toward Jarabik during the relevant period.

Those reviewing the material have characterised the communications as an attempt by Choksi to cultivate a personal relationship in the context of the wider dispute.

Despite allegations of an extra-marital relationship with Barbara, Choksi continues to live with his wife Priti Choksi. Commentators argued that this continuity in a good marital relationship suggests a level of awareness or involvement of his wife in disappearance, “No woman would stay with such a man,” they said. The decision to continue supporting Mehul Choksi despite the affair claims suggests that Priti Choksi may have been complicit in the entire plot. If the alleged affair or ‘honey-trapping’ claims were genuine, it would be reasonable to expect that she would have distanced herself. Her decision to remain with him instead fuels speculation that she was aware the narrative was being used as part of a broader strategy to evade ongoing legal proceedings in India.

The Indian investigative agencies are expected to keep a keen watch on Mehul Choksi will be submitting such high sums to the court, as currently all his assets are seized and there is no other explanation of his source of funds.

The recent judgement also states, “There is no detailed evidence as to Mr Choksi’s financial position, nor as to his ability to raise money to cover the security. There is no explanation as to how he is meeting his own legal costs.”

Experts, including an experienced Barrister Michael Leeds who has been monitoring the case have expressed skepticism about the prospects of success of the defamation claim. As per Leeds, Choksi is wasting the tax payer’s money. According to assessments shared by practitioners familiar with the proceedings, Choksi’s chances of prevailing have been estimated at approximately 5%, with lawyers indicating a high likelihood that the claim may ultimately fail before the court.