The High Court of Justice ordered Indian fugitive businessman Mehul Choksi to deposit £677,000 plus VAT as security for costs in a case he filed against the five individuals and the government of India. The proceedings are related to the allegations surrounding his disappearance from Antigua and Barbuda.
The order was issued on Friday following applications by the defendants, including Gurmit Singh, Gurjit Bhandal, Barbara Jarabik, Leslie Farrow-Guy, Gurdip Bath and the Government of India, seeking security for legal costs from Mehul Choksi. The defendants argued the deposit was necessary to ensure recovery of costs if the claim is dismissed, particularly on jurisdictional grounds.
The court is further scheduled to determine in November 2026, whether it has jurisdiction for the matter to be heard in the UK. The judgment by Justice Mansfield further noted that there was little, if anything, to connect the alleged events to England, aside from Choksi’s assertion that the conspiracy was orchestrated there. However, the court stated that there was no direct evidence to support this claim. It added that there was also no evidence indicating where the alleged plan was conceived or advanced.
In the last hearing that was held on December 18, 2025, the court considered submissions from both sides. The amount of the security costs would increase if the case proceeds to a full trial.
It is worth mentioning that, regardless of whatever turns to be the total amount of expenses, Mehul Choksi will not receive any remaining funds. The money submitted to the court will not be returned, as his assets are already being seized by the Indian government.
If the court decides that the defamation case can go ahead in the United Kingdom, the defendants would seek a separate and much higher security for costs order. All the submissions made during the hearing project a full trial could last more than 20 days, with total legal costs estimated at between £3 million and £4 million, depending on the scope of the evidence.
Mehul Choksi in his claims further stated that the governments of Antigua and Dominica were involved in, arranged, or allowed the alleged kidnapping, although the Justice Mansfield has emphasised that neither government has been named as a defendant in the defamation case.
In a judgment delivered before Justice Mansfield, the court added, “I am not satisfied that there is a strong probability of success.”
The judgment further observed that there was no witness evidence of the alleged kidnapping and assault beyond the claimant’s own account. 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.
Choksi’s legal team has advanced ten principal grounds in support of his defamation claim:
- Lawyers: One of the central arguments concerns the travel movements of the five defendants in April and May 2021. His lawyers Edward Fitzgerald KC and legal team have questioned how the individuals could have travelled to Antigua and Barbuda on similar routes or flights if, as they contend, they had no prior relationship with one another.
This claim was disputed by a private investigation carried out by a team led by former Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur CBE QPM. The group, which included former Scotland Yard officers, travelled to the Caribbean and remained there for a month to examine the matter.
Independent Investigation: Investigators interviewed the travel agent responsible for arranging the bookings, who explained that it is common for unrelated travellers to visit Caribbean destinations for holidays within a short period and even to travel on similar routes or flights. On the matter, the agent stated that the repeat or coinciding travel within a few months does not, in itself, indicate any personal or professional relationship between travellers. It has also outlined that the provided documentary examples also cleared the comparable booking patterns to support that position and their travels have been made during COVID when the connectivity through flights was limited.
- 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: The UK based forensic team analysed the video footage and outlined that the quality of the footage was insufficient to provide any reliable identification of the people in the video. As per their assessment, the resolution of the video was too poor to establish critical details. Even the details of the vehicles including its registration number was not readable. On the other hand, Mr Bath has outlined that the other individual was Leslie Farrow-Guy, the forensic analysis stated that the footage itself does not establish any person’s identity with certainty.The judgment also noted that much of the evidence used to support the claim was based on hearsay or opinion. It added that in some instances, those presenting the material offered their own views on what the evidence showed
- Choksi’s legal team has further alleged that following his claimed abduction, Bath, Jarabik and Farrow-Guy met with Antigua and Barbuda’s Prime Minister, Gaston Browne.
Independent Investigation: This claim was examined by investigators who consulted official records from the Office of the Prime Minister. Those records indicated that Mr Browne was not in Antigua on the relevant date. On 23 May 2021, he was reportedly in New York and later addressed the World Health Assembly in Geneva via Zoom, as confirmed by the official records.
- 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. According to his lawyers, Singh’s name on the list indicates priori coordination between these individuals.
Independent Investigation: The claim was also examined by the team which investigated the records, reviewed records obtained directly from the hire company and concluded that the agreement was digitally generated and later modified. Their analysis indicated that Singh’s details were inserted through a post-issuance edit on 29 May 2021, more than a week after the vehicle had been hired, raising questions as to why the document was altered at that stage. Even, the driving number that was mentioned in their document was also incorrect.
- Choksi has also relied on a police investigation report prepared by Inspector Adonis Henry of the Antigua and Barbuda Royal Police Force. The reliability of that report has been questioned following disclosures by Corporal Cedric Williams, another officer involved in the investigation.
In a signed 15-page statement given to Oliver Laurence, Corporal Williams admitted that he had developed an inappropriate closeness with Priti Choksi during the inquiry, leading to his removal from the case. Senior officers including the Police Commissioner and deputy commissioners subsequently raised concerns about the investigation’s impartiality.
Williams also issued the statement and stated, “I was too close to Mrs. Choksi and her family in this matter and possibly telling her too much information,” an admission that has been cited as undermining the report’s credibility. Williams’ close relationship with Mehul Choksi’s wife raised concerns about possible bias, which in turn cast doubt on the reliability of the information. The same investigation was cited as leading to Interpol withdrawing its Red Notice against Mehul Choksi.
- Choksi’s lawyers have also pointed to a settlement agreement reached in Dominica concerning his alleged illegal entry into the country. Statements signed by senior Dominican officials, including the Attorney General, Chief of Police and Director of Public Prosecutions asserted that Choksi had been forcibly taken from Antigua and was not in Dominica voluntarily.
According to the statement, defendants had reviewed certain documents and were satisfied that Choksi had been forcibly taken from Antigua to Dominica and had not entered the country of his own free will.
However, information presented to the court questioned the circumstances under which those statements were made, suggesting that the officials involved had faced threats of defamation proceedings over their official actions. It was argued that such pressure may have influenced their acceptance of the settlement wording.
Investigators also referred to records from the Roseau Police Station diary, which reportedly detail the place and manner of Choksi’s arrest and were cited as key evidence contradicting the account in the settlement statement. In addition, five other officials, including customs and immigration officers, provided separate statements.
- 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
The investigative team has examined the records of official immigration and telecommunication. The records have shown that the vessel departed Antigua at 10:09 a.m. on that day, while Choksi is recorded as leaving his residence at approximately 5:00 p.m. nearly seven hours later. Mobile phone data further indicated that Gurjit Bhandal’s mobile handset Fernandes Fertinant (captain of Calliope of Arne) was connected to mobile towers in Guadeloupe at 5:47 p.m., reaching Dominica at about 11:07 PM. The timings further suggest those associated with the vessel were already en route while Choksi remained at home.
Prime Minister Browne and Antigua’s Commissioner of Police, Atlee Rodney, have both publicly stated that available evidence does not support claims that Choksi was abducted. They have made these statements in official briefings and media interactions. Both maintained that available investigative material does not substantiate allegations of forcible removal from Antigua.
- The investigative team also 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 the Antigua and Barbuda 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.
- WhatsApp chat records involving Barbara Jarabik were also shared with the investigative team. As per the investigation, the messages show Choksi making repeated personal advances toward her during the relevant timeframe, which some reviewers have characterised as an attempt to cultivate a personal relationship amid the wider dispute.
Despite allegations of an extra-marital affair with Barbara, Choksi continues to live with his wife, Priti Choksi. Commentators cited have argued that this continuity raises questions about the broader narrative surrounding his disappearance. According to them, “No woman should stay with such a man.”
The continued support shown to Mehul Choksi despite claims of an affair has led to suggestions that Priti Choksi may have been involved in the wider plan. If the alleged affair or “honey-trapping” claims were true, it would normally be expected that she would distance herself. Her decision to stay with him has instead added to speculation that she knew the narrative was being used as part of a broader effort to avoid ongoing legal proceedings in India.
The judgment has also raised questions about how Choksi intends to pay the ordered security costs, noting that there is no explanation of the source of his funds. The court stated that there was no detailed evidence about his financial position or his ability to raise money to meet the security requirement, nor any explanation of how he is paying his own legal expenses.
Legal 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. He further added that the Choksi is wasting 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.
