Deutsche Bank Ag v Vik & Anor [2010] EWHC 551 (Comm) (19 March 2010)

Deutsche Bank Ag v Vik & Anor [2010] EWHC 551 (Comm) (19 March 2010)

The claimant failed to establish, on the evidence before the court, a serious issue to be tried or a real prospect of success on the merits of its claims for restitution or constructive trust. The evidence of mistake was speculative, inadequately explained, and unsupported by key witnesses or documentation. There was no sufficient evidence of a causative mistake or of the defendants' knowledge. Accordingly, the jurisdictional threshold for service out of the jurisdiction was not met.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 551 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Deutsche Bank AG; Defendant: Mr Alexander Vik; Defendant: Vik Millahue Agricola y Viñedos Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim for Restitution and Constructive Trust / Application to Set Aside Order for Service Out of the Jurisdiction
Outcome
Claim dismissed on jurisdictional grounds; order for service out of the jurisdiction set aside; service on both defendants set aside.
Legal Topics
Restitution for Mistake, Constructive Trust, Jurisdiction to Serve Out of the Jurisdiction, Summary Judgment Threshold, Mistaken Payments, Knowing Receipt
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Private International Law Restitution for Mistake Constructive Trust Jurisdiction to Serve Out of the Jurisdiction Summary Judgment Threshold Mistaken Payments +1 more

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deutsche Bank AG

Claimant

Mr Alexander Vik

Defendant

Vik Millahue Agricola y Viñedos Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim for Restitution and Constructive Trust / Application to Set Aside Order for Service Out of the Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a serious issue to be tried on claims for restitution of mistaken payments and constructive trust against non-resident defendants
  2. 2 Whether the evidence establishes a real prospect of success on the merits for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the payments were made under a mistake of fact and if so, whether the defendants had knowledge of the mistake

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish, on the evidence before the court, a serious issue to be tried or a real prospect of success on the merits of its claims for restitution or constructive trust. The evidence of mistake was speculative, inadequately explained, and unsupported by key witnesses or documentation. There was no sufficient evidence of a causative mistake or of the defendants' knowledge. Accordingly, the jurisdictional threshold for service out of the jurisdiction was not met.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed on jurisdictional grounds; order for service out of the jurisdiction set aside; service on both defendants set aside.

Orders

  • Order of Andrew Smith J for service out of the jurisdiction discharged.
  • Service on both defendants discharged.