Persons identified in Schedule 1 v Standard Chartered PLC

In complex group litigation, case-management directions must balance the need to establish each claimant’s standing with proportionality. Standing is fundamental and must be resolved before or at the first trial, but it may be progressed through a limited sample. Custodian letters verifying beneficial ownership and transactions will ordinarily be important evidence of standing. Material directed principally to quantum need not ordinarily be required at the standing stage. Sampling for reliance and limitation should cover materially different trading windows and claimant categories without imposing unnecessary burden.

This was the fourth case management conference in group litigation by approximately 217 claimants representing about 1,410 funds against Standard Chartered PLC. The claims, exceeding £1.5 billion, were brought under sections 90 and 90A and Schedule 10A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

The court considered further work required on standing, reliance and limitation before the first trial, including sample claimants, disclosure, expert evidence and proposed disclosure from the defendant’s investor-relations department.

1. Standing. Standing was fundamental and each claimant had to prove it on the balance of probabilities. It had to be addressed before or at Trial 1 and could not be deferred to Trial 2. Sampling was potentially appropriate, but it was premature to determine finally that standing would be tried only by sample.
2. The court rejected a requirement for all claimants to provide complete custody-chain evidence. Twelve sample claimants, six selected by each side, were directed to provide custody-chain evidence in both directions, unclean trading data with explanations, and direct-participation evidence for rights-issue claims under section 90 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Custodian letters verifying beneficial ownership and transactions would in all likelihood be sufficient to establish standing.
3. Detailed transaction material directed principally to quantum was more appropriately addressed at Trial 2. The position on standing could be revisited after sample disclosure and updated particulars.
4. Trial 2 sampling. The appropriate sample for reliance and limitation was 10 claimants. It covered the relevant trading windows and included conduit-reliance, holding-only and Specific Reliance categories. The court applied the sampling considerations identified in the Serco case.
5. Expert evidence on corporate brokering was allowed. Proposed further disclosure from the defendant’s investor-relations department was refused at this stage as bordering on a fishing expedition; any such request required a specific disclosure application.