Claim No. ENF 053/2025

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

STANDARD CHARTERED PLC

Applicant/Judgment Creditor

and

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK

Respondent/Judgment Debtor

REASONS FOR THE ORDER OF H.E. DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE ALI AL MADHANI DATED 30 APRIL 2025

1. Application P45/01 (the “Application”) for the enforcement of the Order of the Honourable Mr Justice Michael Green issued in the English High Court (the “English Proceedings”) in Various Investors v Standard Chartered Plc, with Claim Numbers FL-2020-000038, FL-2021-000011, FL-2022-000009, and FL-2022-000023 dated 27 August 2024, as amended on 26 November 2024 (the “Disclosure Order”) was brought by the Applicant against the Respondent, and granted on 30 April 2025 with the effect that the Disclosure Order is ratified, recognised and enforced as an order of the DIFC Court pursuant to Article 31(4) of the DIFC Court Law. The reasons for such are below.

2. To address a matter akin enough to housekeeping to be discussed early in the reasons, I accept that using the P45 form is procedurally correct in the context of the current circumstances, as referred to at the Hearing. Typically, a Part 7 or 8 Claim Form would be the first requirement in gaining access to present a dispute to a Judge, however, as submitted by counsel, the conditions to circumvent this requirement by going straight to part 45 of the DIFC Court Rules (“RDC”) have been satisfied.

3. RDC 45.8 states that an application notice for enforcement must be made by Form P45/01 if a decision is made by a court, tribunal, body or person other than the DIFC Court and provides that the decision may be enforced as if it were a court order. In a judgment delivered by Justice Wayne Martin, as he then was, on a case that is to remain anonymous (the “First Case”), RDC 45.8 is interpreted to have created a two-stage test: “[t]he first question is whether it is an available process. The second question is, if it is an available process, is it the appropriate process to adopt in the circumstances of this case?”

4. In the First Case, Justice Wayne Martin relied on prior precedent in which Part 45 was an available gateway. However, the difficulty in adopting the Part 45 procedure stemmed from the fact that in the previous cases, the Part 45 gateway was not raised as an issue to be determined, or it was found that the foreign court from which the relevant judgment was issued operated within the Arab treaties. Therefore, those decisions were not binding.

5. Nonetheless, Chief Justice Martin clearly stated that the prior cases “gave rise to at least an arguable proposition that the Part 45 process is available” and in those circumstances, there is a reasonable “assumption that the Part 45 process is an available course” equal to the “Part 7 process”. What amounts to “arguable”, hence adoptable, is then a question of case management principles.

6. Under RDC 48.5, there would need to be a treaty embodied in an enactment which would have to deal with a jurisdictional structure. In a second case submitted in evidence, also to remain anonymous, the prior Chief Justice Hwang made clear that procedure can go though RDC 45.8 directly if there is an enactment. An enactment can include a foreign order that could be enforced as if it were an order of the DIFC Courts when a combination of Articles 5A(1)(e) and 7(6) of the JAL, now replaced by Article 31 of Law No. 2 of 2025, and Article 24 of the DIFC Court Law No.10 of 2004 are satisfied. This is confirmed by a third case, again to remain anonymous, by Chief Justice Martin as submitted by counsel.

7. 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. Therefore, the availability of Part 45 as a gateway is at least arguable.

8. On the second phase, whether Part 45 is appropriate, it was submitted by counsel that on the current facts the English Claimants have made no objection on being sent the Form 45 as it is in their interest that disclosure faces no disruption.

9. Further, there is no purpose to serving a Part 7 claim as there are no issues to be addressed. On the facts in the First Case, the enforcement recognition was for a judgement issued in the British Virgin Islands. The factor that swayed the judgment to be in favour of the Part 7 process is that there were several contestable issues that required the full scrutiny of the Court, hence, a Form 45/01 was not suitable. Since there are no contestable issues, Form 45/01 is an appropriate form to use; this case is a straightforward enforcement of an existing English Court order that acts in favour of both parties. On a similar vein regarding Part 8, there is no issue of law to be resolved and so resources and costs sunk into evidence, directions and similar case management that is simply unnecessary. 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).

10. 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. I also see no conflict with the public policy of the UAE as the aim here is the resolution of a civil claim falls under considerations of comity which is consistent with the UAE penal code and relevant statute. 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.

11. As it was made clear that this Application is intended to seek enforcement of an existing order as if it were a DIFC Order, and not an enforcement of a debt, I will refer to the parties as “Applicant” and “Respondent” only with no reference to the Judgment Sum listed on the P45 Form as including such value was necessary in format only.

12. 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.

13. Hence, under RDC 45.8, the Applicant seeks to enforce the Disclosure Order within the DIFC as if it were a DIFC Court order, pursuant to Articles 31(2) and (4) of Law No 2. Of 2025. The purpose of seeking the enforcement recognition order is to ensure that the DIFC entity of Standard Chartered is compliant with DIFC Law in the disclosure of documents and data that are subject to local banking laws and the Penal Code – essentially, the enforcement recognition order acts as protection.

14. RDC 45.8 reads as follows:

15. Articles 31(2) and (4) of Law No.2 of 2025 read:

16. The Applicant also provided the sealed order from the English Courts issued from The Honourable Mr Justice Michael Green, dated 17 July 2024, which confirms:

17. I accept that the DIFC Court has enforcement jurisdiction over DIFC entities, and that the Disclosure Order is issued from a recognised foreign court, and that the subject matter of the Disclosure Order is enforceable within the DIFC, and that as there is no compelling objection or anticipated objection to enforcement. Furthermore, I concede that the ‘Memorandum of Guidance As To Enforcement Between the DIFC Courts and the UK Commercial Court’, which operates as an understanding of the enforcement procedures of each jurisdiction, though does not constitute a treaty, establishes enough of a relationship between the two courts to permit Part 45 acting as a gateway on these facts. Therefore, I acknowledge that this is a straightforward matter whereby the DIFC Courts have the unambiguous power to enforce a foreign judgment. Hence, the Application is granted.

Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of Issue: 21 May 2025
At: 3pm