STANDARD CHARTERED PLC v STANDARD CHARTERED BANK [2025] DIFC ENF 053 — Enforcement of foreign disclosure orders (21 May 2025)

The DIFC Court has confirmed the procedural viability of using RDC 45.8 as a direct gateway for the recognition and enforcement of foreign disclosure orders, provided there is no contestable issue between the parties.

How did Standard Chartered PLC utilize the DIFC Court to enforce a disclosure order issued by the English High Court in the context of ongoing litigation?

The dispute originated from English High Court proceedings (Claim Nos. FL-2020-000038, et al.) involving allegations of misleading statements and omissions in prospectuses published by Standard Chartered PLC. As part of those proceedings, Mr Justice Michael Green issued a Disclosure Order on 27 August 2024, requiring the production of documents relevant to the litigation, including records pertaining to the Standard Chartered Group’s UAE operations.

Standard Chartered PLC sought to enforce this English order within the DIFC to ensure compliance while navigating potential restrictions under UAE law regarding customer data. The Applicant successfully petitioned the DIFC Court to ratify and recognize the English Disclosure Order as an order of the DIFC Court. As noted in the court’s reasoning:

In the English Proceedings, the claim was brought against the Applicant due to alleged misleading statements and omissions in prospectuses and published information, and delayed disclosing information about US sanctions and anti-money laundering failings, some of which involved the Standard Chartered Group's UAE operations. The English Court ordered the Applicant to provide disclosure of documents relevant to the issues brought forward; some of those documents may be subject to restriction under UAE law.

Which judge presided over the enforcement application of the English Disclosure Order in ENF 053/2025?

H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani presided over the application in the Enforcement Division of the DIFC Court. The reasons for the order were issued on 21 May 2025, following the initial granting of the application on 30 April 2025.

What were the primary arguments advanced by the Applicant regarding the procedural suitability of RDC 45.8 for foreign order enforcement?

Counsel for the Applicant argued that the enforcement of the English Disclosure Order did not necessitate the filing of a full Part 7 or Part 8 claim, which would typically be required for contested litigation. Instead, they contended that the conditions for utilizing RDC 45.8 were satisfied because the English High Court is a recognized foreign court and the subject matter fell within the DIFC Court’s jurisdiction under Article 31(2) of Law No. 2 of 2025.

The Applicant emphasized that there were no contestable issues between the parties, as the disclosure was in the interest of all involved to prevent disruption to the ongoing English proceedings. By bypassing the traditional claim form process, the Applicant sought to minimize costs and judicial resource expenditure. The court summarized the jurisdictional basis for this approach as follows:

Summarily, to address the first phase of the two-part test, it is submitted that the court has jurisdiction on these facts to grant enforcement recognition directly though Part 45 if the Court has jurisdiction under Article 31(2) of Law No. 2 of 2025 as the foreign judgment falls onto a DIFC establishment, and Article 24 of the DIFC Courts Law as the English Courts are a recognised foreign court.

What was the specific legal question regarding the two-stage test for RDC 45.8 that the court had to resolve in ENF 053/2025?

The court was tasked with determining whether the RDC 45.8 procedure—which allows for the enforcement of a decision by a body other than the DIFC Court as if it were a DIFC Court order—was both available and appropriate in the circumstances. This required applying the two-stage test established in previous, anonymous DIFC precedents: first, whether the process is legally available, and second, whether it is the appropriate mechanism given the lack of contestable issues. The court had to decide if the absence of a treaty or specific enactment could be overcome by the statutory framework of Law No. 2 of 2025 and the DIFC Court Law.

How did H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani apply the two-stage test to justify the use of RDC 45.8?

The judge concluded that the RDC 45.8 gateway was both available and appropriate. He reasoned that because the English High Court is a recognized foreign court and the order concerned a DIFC entity, the jurisdictional requirements were met. Furthermore, he found that the absence of any contestable issues made the summary enforcement process efficient and consistent with the principles of comity. The court’s reasoning for the appropriateness of this route is captured in the following:

I accept that RDC 45.8 is both accessible and appropriate on the facts. Further, this route assists disclosure in the English proceedings without additional cost burden to the parties, or resource burden on the DIFC Court.

Which specific statutes and rules were applied by the court to validate the enforcement of the English Disclosure Order?

The court relied on Article 31(4) of the DIFC Court Law and Article 31(2) of Law No. 2 of 2025 to establish the legal basis for recognizing the foreign order. Additionally, Article 24 of the DIFC Court Law No. 10 of 2004 was cited to confirm the status of the English High Court as a recognized foreign court. Procedurally, the court utilized RDC 45.8, which governs the enforcement of decisions made by bodies other than the DIFC Court, and noted the relevance of RDC 48.5 regarding jurisdictional structures.

How did the court distinguish the present case from previous precedents regarding the use of the Part 45 gateway?

The court referenced several anonymous cases to clarify the application of RDC 45.8. It noted that while previous cases had sometimes favored the Part 7 process, those instances involved "contestable issues" that required full judicial scrutiny. In contrast, the court distinguished the present matter by highlighting that the absence of any objection or anticipated contest rendered the summary RDC 45.8 procedure the most suitable, cost-effective, and efficient route. The court affirmed that the "arguable proposition" that Part 45 is an available course had been sufficiently established.

What was the final disposition and the specific relief granted by the DIFC Court in ENF 053/2025?

The application was granted. The court ordered that the Disclosure Order issued by the English High Court be ratified, recognized, and enforced as an order of the DIFC Court. The court also ensured that the order included protections for confidentiality, as stated:

Finally, it is clear by the Disclosure Order that the appropriate steps will be taken to preserve the confidentiality of customer data and communications with the UAE bank via a process of redaction as well as protections against collateral disclosure.

How does this ruling change the practice for litigants seeking to enforce foreign disclosure orders in the DIFC?

This decision clarifies that the DIFC Court is willing to act as a streamlined conduit for foreign disclosure orders, provided the applicant can demonstrate that the process is uncontested. Practitioners should anticipate that where there is no dispute regarding the validity of a foreign order, the court will favor the RDC 45.8 gateway over more cumbersome Part 7 or Part 8 proceedings. This reduces the procedural burden on parties and the court, emphasizing efficiency in cross-border litigation. As the court noted:

Therefore, the most appropriate route is direct to RDC 45.8 enforcement due to no contest, nor anticipated contest (for the purpose of full and frank disclosure).

Where can I read the full judgment in Standard Chartered PLC v Standard Chartered Bank [2025] DIFC ENF 053?

The full judgment can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website at: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/enforcement/enf-0532025-standard-chartered-plc-v-standard-chartered-bank-1

Cases referred to in this judgment:

Legislation referenced:

• DIFC Court Law Article 31(4)
• DIFC Court Law No. 10 of 2004 Article 24
• Law No. 2 of 2025 Article 31
• Law No. 2 of 2025 Article 31(2)
• RDC 45.8
• RDC 48.5