The Persons Identified In Schedule 1 To the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim v Standard Chartered Plc [2024] EWCA Civ 674 (17 June 2024)

The Persons Identified In Schedule 1 To the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim v Standard Chartered Plc [2024] EWCA Civ 674 (17 June 2024)

The Court held that the claimants' pleadings, read together with the incorporated passages from the Brutus Complaint and particulars regarding Maxpower, were sufficiently particularised to allow the allegations of fraud and dishonesty to proceed to trial. The law does not require all primary facts or evidence to be pleaded at this stage, nor does it bar reliance on allegations made by third parties if credibly vouched. The claimants' approach did not warrant strike out under CPR 3.4(2), though requests for further information may be appropriate. The only exception was the claim that certain non-executive directors of Maxpower were PDMRs of SC plc, which was properly struck out.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Civ 674
Parties
Claimants/respondents: The Persons Identified in Schedule 1 to the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim; Defendant/appellant: Standard Chartered PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Decision on Strike Out Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (except as to non-executive directors of Maxpower as PDMRs)
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Pleading Fraud and Dishonesty, Securities Litigation, Disclosure Obligations, Directors' Liability
Financial Services Law Civil Procedure Corporate Law Strike Out Applications Pleading Fraud and Dishonesty Securities Litigation Disclosure Obligations Directors' Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Persons Identified in Schedule 1 to the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim

Claimants/respondents

Standard Chartered PLC

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Decision on Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants' pleadings relating to the Brutus Complaint and Maxpower allegations should be struck out for inadequate particularisation of fraud/dishonesty under CPR 3.4(2)
  2. 2 Whether the claimants have sufficiently pleaded knowledge/dishonesty of persons discharging managerial responsibilities (PDMRs) within SC plc for the purposes of FSMA s.90A and Schedule 10A

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the claimants' pleadings, read together with the incorporated passages from the Brutus Complaint and particulars regarding Maxpower, were sufficiently particularised to allow the allegations of fraud and dishonesty to proceed to trial. The law does not require all primary facts or evidence to be pleaded at this stage, nor does it bar reliance on allegations made by third parties if credibly vouched. The claimants' approach did not warrant strike out under CPR 3.4(2), though requests for further information may be appropriate. The only exception was the claim that certain non-executive directors of Maxpower were PDMRs of SC plc, which was properly struck out.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (except as to non-executive directors of Maxpower as PDMRs)

Orders

  • The claimants' pleadings relating to the Brutus Complaint and Maxpower allegations (except as to non-executive directors of Maxpower as PDMRs) are not struck out and may proceed to trial.
  • Allegations that certain non-executive directors of Maxpower were PDMRs of SC plc are struck out.