Persons Identified in Schedule 1 v Standard Chartered plc

Persons Identified in Schedule 1 v Standard Chartered plc

Defendant failed to demonstrate any real risk of criminal prosecution or civil enforcement action by US or Singapore regulators for disclosure of relevant documents pursuant to an English Court order. The documents are relevant and necessary for a fair trial. Disclosure will be ordered, subject to a confidentiality ring including Claimant and funder representatives, not limited to external lawyers only.

Parties
Claimants: Persons Identified in Schedule 1; Defendant: Standard Chartered plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Case Management Conference (cmc), Ruling on Dispensation and Confidentiality Ring Applications
Outcome
Defendant's Dispensation Application dismissed; Confidentiality Ring Application granted in part.
Legal Topics
Dispensation From Disclosure, Confidentiality Ring, Foreign Law Restrictions, Comity, Risk of Prosecution, Civil Enforcement Sanctions, Fair Trial, Open Justice
Disclosure Financial Services Law Civil Procedure Dispensation From Disclosure Confidentiality Ring Foreign Law Restrictions Comity Risk of Prosecution +3 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 5 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Persons Identified in Schedule 1

Claimants

Standard Chartered plc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Case Management Conference (cmc), Ruling on Dispensation and Confidentiality Ring Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant should be dispensed from disclosing certain documents due to foreign law restrictions and risk of prosecution or civil enforcement
  2. 2 Whether disclosure should be limited to a confidentiality ring and its scope
  3. 3 Balancing risk of foreign prosecution/civil sanction against fair trial requirements

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant failed to demonstrate any real risk of criminal prosecution or civil enforcement action by US or Singapore regulators for disclosure of relevant documents pursuant to an English Court order. The documents are relevant and necessary for a fair trial. Disclosure will be ordered, subject to a confidentiality ring including Claimant and funder representatives, not limited to external lawyers only.

Court Disposition

Defendant's Dispensation Application dismissed; Confidentiality Ring Application granted in part.

Orders

  • Disclosure of CSI Documents, US SARs, US SAR Information, and MAS Documents ordered into a confidentiality ring including three Claimant representatives and a funder representative.
  • Confidentiality ring not limited to external lawyers only (EEO); Defendant not entitled to approve representatives in advance.