Persons Identified in Schedule 1 v Standard Chartered PLC

In large and complex litigation, the court may split issues between trials where, applying the overriding objective, this is the fairest and most efficient means of case management. Deferred issues may still be progressed in parallel through sampling, disclosure and witness evidence. Common reliance issues raising a relatively self-contained legal question may be tried with the defendant’s common issues, while individual reliance, limitation, causation and quantum are deferred. An unless order should not be imposed merely because of serious delay and non-compliance; the sanction must be fair and justified in the circumstances.

This was the second case management conference in substantial claims by 226 investors, said to represent approximately 1,600 funds, against Standard Chartered PLC. The claims, estimated at about £1.45 billion, concerned alleged untrue or misleading statements and omissions in published information, including allegations concerning US sanctions and bribery.

The court had to determine the trial structure, disclosure timetable, trial date, reliance questionnaire sanctions, the deadline for quantum particulars, and costs of an earlier Part 18 application. The central issue was where the split between the first and any second trial should fall.

1. Split trial. The first trial was ordered to determine standing, the defendant’s common issues and the common reliance issues. The second trial would determine the remaining reliance issues, limitation, causation and quantum. The order remained reviewable if circumstances materially changed.
2. The overriding objective required a realistic and pragmatic balance between fairness, trial manageability, settlement prospects, appeals, judicial resources and the burden of preparation. Splitting offered a substantial potential saving and the possibility that a second trial might be avoided through dismissal or settlement.
3. Individual reliance and limitation were to progress in parallel through sampling, disclosure and witness evidence. This promoted settlement, ensured engagement with the claims, preserved evidence before memories faded, and reduced the risk that evidence would be influenced by the first judgment. Common reliance was suitable for the first trial because it affected all claimants and raised an important, substantially legal issue.
4. The January 2026 trial was postponed to October 2026. Expanded disclosure, amendments after disclosure and the additional work arising from the common reliance issues meant that the existing timetable was unlikely to permit fair preparation. A full year’s postponement was unnecessary.
5. The extension for reliance questionnaire responses to 31 May 2024 was made as a final order, but not on an unless basis. Despite serious delay, an unless order was not yet fair and justified. Any further extension would be considered on an unless basis. Quantum particulars were to be provided on a rolling basis with a backstop four weeks after 23 May 2024, subject to any stay or alteration of the related trading-data order. The claimants were ordered to pay the costs of the Part 18 application, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.