Crane Bank Limited & Ors v DFCU Bank Limited & Ors

Crane Bank Limited & Ors v DFCU Bank Limited & Ors

The court found that, where the parties had agreed to provide the requested customer files and related documents, no finding of breach was necessary. However, the selection of additional files must be objective and representative, not unilaterally determined by dfcu. The court ordered staged disclosure of the 40 requested customer files and 20 additional files, with deadlines and a process for resolving disputes. The court declined to order further witness statements or disclosure where the Claimants had not shown a possible failure to comply or where the information sought was already provided or not necessary for just disposal. The court ordered a witness statement regarding possible...

Parties
Claimant: Crane Bank Limited; Claimant: Dr Sudhir Ruparelia; Claimant: Ms Jyotsna Ruparelia; Claimant: Ms Meera Ruparelia; Claimant: The Estate of Mr Rajiv Ruparelia; Claimant: Mr Tom Mugenga; Claimant: Ms Sheena Ruparelia; Defendant: DFCU Bank Limited; Defendant: DFCU Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 September 2026
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure Orders
Outcome
Application granted in part, refused in part
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Extended Disclosure, Document Production, Proportionality, Case Management
Civil Procedure Banking Law Disclosure Extended Disclosure Document Production Proportionality Case Management

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crane Bank Limited

Claimant

Dr Sudhir Ruparelia

Claimant

Ms Jyotsna Ruparelia

Claimant

Ms Meera Ruparelia

Claimant

The Estate of Mr Rajiv Ruparelia

Claimant

Mr Tom Mugenga

Claimant

Ms Sheena Ruparelia

Claimant

DFCU Bank Limited

Defendant

DFCU Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further or varied disclosure orders should be made under CPR Practice Direction 57AD paragraphs 17 and/or 18
  2. 2 Whether there has been or may have been a failure to comply with existing disclosure orders
  3. 3 Whether the selection and timing of customer files for disclosure is appropriate and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, where the parties had agreed to provide the requested customer files and related documents, no finding of breach was necessary. However, the selection of additional files must be objective and representative, not unilaterally determined by dfcu. The court ordered staged disclosure of the 40 requested customer files and 20 additional files, with deadlines and a process for resolving disputes. The court declined to order further witness statements or disclosure where the Claimants had not shown a possible failure to comply or where the information sought was already provided or not necessary for just disposal. The court ordered a witness statement regarding possible...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part, refused in part

Orders

  • dfcu to disclose the 40 identified customer files in two stages: those already located by 13 March 2026, remainder by 27 March 2026
  • dfcu to disclose 20 additional customer files by 3 April 2026, selection to be agreed objectively between parties, with liberty to apply if not agreed