Persons Identified in Schedule 1 v Standard Chartered PLC [2025] EWHC 2136 (Ch) (04 August 2025)

Persons Identified in Schedule 1 v Standard Chartered PLC [2025] EWHC 2136 (Ch) (04 August 2025)

The defendant failed to demonstrate a real (actual) risk of prosecution or serious regulatory sanction if the documents were disclosed pursuant to an English court order. The authorities require more than a hypothetical or remote risk, and the absence of any precedent for prosecution in similar circumstances is highly relevant. The documents in question have been deemed relevant by the defendant's own lawyers, and the court must lean in favour of disclosure to ensure a fair trial. Any confidentiality or comity concerns can be addressed by disclosure into a confidentiality ring. Accordingly, the application for dispensation from disclosure is refused; the documents must be disclosed,...

Citation
[2025] EWHC 2136 (Ch)
Parties
Claimants: Persons Identified in Schedule 1; Defendant: Standard Chartered plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Financial Services Litigation / Case Management Conference (cmc) Fifth, With Determination of Disclosure Applications
Outcome
Defendant's application for dispensation from disclosure refused; documents to be disclosed into a confidentiality ring.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Confidentiality Rings, Foreign Law and Comity, Risk of Prosecution for Disclosure, Regulatory Communications, Duties of Confidence to Regulators
Financial Services Law Civil Procedure Banking Law Disclosure of Documents Confidentiality Rings Foreign Law and Comity Risk of Prosecution for Disclosure Regulatory Communications +1 more

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Persons Identified in Schedule 1

Claimants

Standard Chartered plc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Financial Services Litigation / Case Management Conference (cmc) Fifth, With Determination of Disclosure Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be dispensed from disclosing certain documents due to duties of confidence owed to foreign regulators and risk of prosecution or regulatory sanction
  2. 2 Whether disclosure should be permitted into a confidentiality ring
  3. 3 Balancing the risk of foreign prosecution/regulatory action against the right to a fair trial and full disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to demonstrate a real (actual) risk of prosecution or serious regulatory sanction if the documents were disclosed pursuant to an English court order. The authorities require more than a hypothetical or remote risk, and the absence of any precedent for prosecution in similar circumstances is highly relevant. The documents in question have been deemed relevant by the defendant's own lawyers, and the court must lean in favour of disclosure to ensure a fair trial. Any confidentiality or comity concerns can be addressed by disclosure into a confidentiality ring. Accordingly, the application for dispensation from disclosure is refused; the documents must be disclosed,...

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for dispensation from disclosure refused; documents to be disclosed into a confidentiality ring.

Orders

  • Defendant to disclose the relevant documents (CSI Documents, US SARs, MAS Documents) into a confidentiality ring as specified.
  • Any further directions for the confidentiality ring to be agreed between the parties or determined by the court if not agreed.