The Persons Identified in Schedule 1 to the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim v Standard Chartered PLC

The Persons Identified in Schedule 1 to the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim v Standard Chartered PLC

The Court of Appeal held that the claimants’ pleadings, read with the referenced passages of the Brutus Complaint and particulars regarding Maxpower, were sufficiently particularised to allow the claims to proceed. There is no rule that a pleading must disclose on its face a solid evidential foundation for allegations of fraud or dishonesty; the core requirement is adequate particularisation. The claimants are entitled to rely on credible third-party allegations and need not, at this stage, identify all evidence or specific individuals as PDMRs, provided the case is clarified as information becomes available. The appeal was dismissed.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Application to Strike Out Parts of Pleadings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Striking Out Pleadings, Pleading Fraud and Dishonesty, Securities Litigation, Disclosure Obligations, Directors' Liability
Financial Services Law Civil Procedure Striking Out Pleadings 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Application to Strike Out Parts of Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was wrong to decline to strike out parts of the claimants’ pleadings relating to allegations of fraud and dishonesty based on the Brutus Complaint and Maxpower allegations under sections 90 and 90A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA).

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the claimants’ pleadings, read with the referenced passages of the Brutus Complaint and particulars regarding Maxpower, were sufficiently particularised to allow the claims to proceed. There is no rule that a pleading must disclose on its face a solid evidential foundation for allegations of fraud or dishonesty; the core requirement is adequate particularisation. The claimants are entitled to rely on credible third-party allegations and need not, at this stage, identify all evidence or specific individuals as PDMRs, provided the case is clarified as information becomes available. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the claimants’ pleadings relating to the Brutus Complaint and Maxpower are not struck out.