Sebastian Holdings, Inc v Deutsche Bank AG

Sebastian Holdings, Inc v Deutsche Bank AG

Given the judge's findings that SHI had dissipated assets to frustrate enforcement and retained the right to recover those assets, there is a compelling reason to require payment into court of the judgment sum and interim costs as a condition of pursuing the appeal. The appellant cannot rely on its own conduct to claim the appeal would be stifled. Security for costs is also justified given the circumstances.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Sebastian Holdings, Inc.; Respondent/claimant: Deutsche Bank AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Conditions on Pursuit of Permission to Appeal And, If Granted, the Appeal
Outcome
Application granted; conditions imposed.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Payment Into Court as Condition of Appeal, Asset Dissipation, Enforcement of Judgments, Non Party Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Banking and Finance Security for Costs Payment Into Court as Condition of Appeal Asset Dissipation Enforcement of Judgments Non Party Costs Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sebastian Holdings, Inc.

Appellant/defendant

Deutsche Bank AG

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Conditions on Pursuit of Permission to Appeal And, If Granted, the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conditions should be imposed on the appellant's pursuit of permission to appeal and the appeal, specifically payment into court of the judgment sum, interim costs, and security for costs
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's dissipation of assets justifies such conditions
  3. 3 Whether the imposition of such conditions would stifle the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Given the judge's findings that SHI had dissipated assets to frustrate enforcement and retained the right to recover those assets, there is a compelling reason to require payment into court of the judgment sum and interim costs as a condition of pursuing the appeal. The appellant cannot rely on its own conduct to claim the appeal would be stifled. Security for costs is also justified given the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application granted; conditions imposed.

Orders

  • SHI to pay into court the judgment sum (approx. US$243m plus interest) within 28 days as a condition of pursuing the application for permission to appeal and, if granted, the appeal.
  • SHI to pay into court the interim payment on account of costs (approx. £34.5m plus interest) within 28 days, subject to terms regarding Mr Vik's payment.