Persons Identified in Schedule 1 v Standard Chartered plc

In English proceedings, foreign confidentiality rules do not override the court’s jurisdiction to order disclosure under English procedural law. The court must balance any real and actual risk of foreign prosecution against the importance and probative value of the documents to a fair trial. The burden lies on the party resisting disclosure. Foreign sanctions, including civil or regulatory measures, require evidence and ordinarily carry less weight than a demonstrated risk of prosecution. Relevant documents will rarely be withheld where confidentiality restrictions can adequately protect foreign interests. Confidentiality rings are exceptional and must go no further than necessary. An external-eyes-only restriction requires cogent justification and will not be ordered merely because a foreign regulator stipulated it as a condition of consent.

The claimants, investors in Standard Chartered plc, bring claims under sections 90 and 90A and Schedule 10A to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. At a case management conference, the defendant sought dispensation from disclosure of documents said to be protected by United States and Singaporean confidentiality rules and to expose it to criminal or regulatory sanctions. It also sought confidentiality-ring restrictions, including an external-eyes-only ring.

The documents comprised United States supervisory information, suspicious activity reports and related information, and communications and inspection reports involving the Monetary Authority of Singapore. The central issues were whether disclosure should be dispensed with because of foreign-law risks and, if disclosure was ordered, what confidentiality protections were justified.

1. Dispensation application dismissed. The court had jurisdiction to order disclosure under English procedural law notwithstanding possible breach of foreign criminal law. The applicable principles in Bank Mellat required assessment of the actual risk of foreign prosecution and a balancing exercise against the importance of the documents to the fair disposal of the English proceedings.
2. The burden was on Standard Chartered to establish a real risk of prosecution. A difference between experts did not itself establish such a risk. Evidence of enforcement history was highly relevant, although the absence of past prosecutions was not an inflexible rule where circumstances showed a recent change of policy. The defendant’s evidence did not demonstrate a real risk of prosecution in the United States or Singapore.
3. The court also rejected reliance on speculative civil or regulatory sanctions. The United States evidence did not show that disclosure pursuant to an English court order would constitute theft, conversion or another offence under section 641 of the United States Criminal Code. The evidence concerning Singapore was weakened by the absence of a written refusal from the Monetary Authority of Singapore, uncertainty about the applicable law and the effect of comity.
4. The documents had passed the relevance threshold. The court would not assume, on the defendant’s evidence alone, that they were merely tangential or of minimal probative value. Their potential significance to knowledge, oversight and compliance issues justified disclosure. Confidentiality rings provided sufficient protection.
5. The confidentiality-ring application was granted only in part. A ring for the disclosed documents was not limited to external lawyers. Three claimant representatives and a funder representative could participate, subject to appropriate undertakings. The defendant was not entitled to approve their identities, and the ring did not need to be restricted to claimants whose standing had been admitted.
6. The Accountability Review Documents did not warrant enhanced confidentiality protection. Sensitivity or embarrassment was insufficient, and the ordinary collateral-use restriction in CPR 31.22 provided adequate protection. Particularly sensitive passages could be redacted if necessary.
7. Permission to appeal against the dispensation decision was refused. The proposed appeal challenged factual findings and discretionary evaluation rather than identifying a seriously arguable error of law.

The judgment records that an earlier strikeout decision in the same proceedings, [2025] EWHC 698 (Ch), was proceeding to the Court of Appeal on permission granted by Zacaroli LJ. That decision was not under appeal in this judgment. Permission to appeal against the present dispensation decision was refused.