Deutsche Bank A.G. v Sebastian Holdings Inc & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 23 (21 January 2016)

Deutsche Bank A.G. v Sebastian Holdings Inc & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 23 (21 January 2016)

Mr. Vik was the real party to the litigation, controlling and funding Sebastian Holdings Inc. for his personal benefit. His involvement was so close that it was just to hold him bound by the findings in the main action and to make a non-party costs order against him under section 51. The absence of warning did not render the procedure unjust given his opportunity to contest all issues.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 23
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Deutsche Bank A.G.; Defendant/appellant: Sebastian Holdings Inc.; Defendant/appellant: Alexander Vik
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Party Costs Orders, Issue Estoppel, Witness Immunity, Corporate Control, Funding Litigation
Civil Procedure Costs Non Party Costs Orders Issue Estoppel Witness Immunity Corporate Control Funding Litigation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deutsche Bank A.G.

Claimant/respondent

Sebastian Holdings Inc.

Defendant/appellant

Alexander Vik

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a non-party costs order can be made against Alexander Vik under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981
  2. 2 Whether Mr. Vik was the 'real party' to the litigation
  3. 3 Whether failure to warn Mr. Vik of potential costs liability rendered the order unjust

Ratio Decidendi

Mr. Vik was the real party to the litigation, controlling and funding Sebastian Holdings Inc. for his personal benefit. His involvement was so close that it was just to hold him bound by the findings in the main action and to make a non-party costs order against him under section 51. The absence of warning did not render the procedure unjust given his opportunity to contest all issues.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Mr. Vik to pay Deutsche Bank £36,204,891 on account of costs
  • Mr. Vik bound by findings in the main action