Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc & Anor [2014] EWHC 112 (Comm) (30 January 2014)

Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc & Anor [2014] EWHC 112 (Comm) (30 January 2014)

There was no good reason, beyond convenience and speed, to justify alternative service on Mr Vik by affixing documents to the Connecticut property gate. The Hague Service Convention provided the primary method of service, and alternative service should not be permitted absent special circumstances. Therefore, the order permitting alternative service was set aside.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 112 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Deutsche Bank AG; 1st Defendant: Sebastian Holdings Inc; 2nd Defendant (for Costs Purposes Only): Alexander Vik
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings (application for Non Party Costs Order) / Interlocutory Application Regarding Service Out of Jurisdiction and Alternative Service
Outcome
Order for alternative service set aside; application for alternative service refused.
Legal Topics
Service Out of Jurisdiction, Alternative Service, Non Party Costs Orders, Hague Service Convention, CPR 6.15, CPR 6.40
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Service Out of Jurisdiction Alternative Service Non Party Costs Orders Hague Service Convention CPR 6.15 CPR 6.40

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deutsche Bank AG

Claimant

Sebastian Holdings Inc

1st Defendant

Alexander Vik

2nd Defendant (for Costs Purposes Only)

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings (application for Non Party Costs Order) / Interlocutory Application Regarding Service Out of Jurisdiction and Alternative Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was good reason to permit alternative service on Mr Vik out of the jurisdiction under CPR 6.15(1)
  2. 2 Whether service by affixing documents to the gate at 10 Ashton Drive, Connecticut, was valid under English law and/or Connecticut law
  3. 3 Whether the Hague Service Convention provided the exclusive or primary method of service in this case

Ratio Decidendi

There was no good reason, beyond convenience and speed, to justify alternative service on Mr Vik by affixing documents to the Connecticut property gate. The Hague Service Convention provided the primary method of service, and alternative service should not be permitted absent special circumstances. Therefore, the order permitting alternative service was set aside.

Court Disposition

Order for alternative service set aside; application for alternative service refused.

Orders

  • Paragraph 3 of the order of 3rd December 2013 permitting alternative service is set aside.
  • No decision made on other issues raised in Mr Vik's application.