Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc & Anor

Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc & Anor

The committal application was sufficiently particularised to enable Mr Vik to understand the case against him, was not abusive or delayed, and did not require permission for allegations of false testimony under CPR 81. Amendments to the application were allowed, subject to safeguarding Mr Vik's right to silence by excluding particulars reliant solely on evidence not yet deployed.

Parties
Claimant: Deutsche Bank AG; Defendant: Sebastian Holdings Inc; Defendant for Costs Purposes Only: Mr Alexander Vik
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Committal Application (civil Contempt) / Ruling on Amendment and Strike Out Applications
Outcome
Strike out application dismissed; permission to amend committal application granted, subject to safeguarding respondent's right to silence.
Legal Topics
Particularisation Requirements, Right to Silence, Abuse of Process, Delay in Contempt Proceedings, Permission for Contempt Applications, Amendment of Application Notices
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Contempt of Court Particularisation Requirements Right to Silence Abuse of Process Delay in Contempt Proceedings Permission for Contempt Applications +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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deutsche Bank AG

Claimant

Sebastian Holdings Inc

Defendant

Mr Alexander Vik

Defendant for Costs Purposes Only

Procedural Posture

Committal Application (civil Contempt) / Ruling on Amendment and Strike Out Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the committal application should be struck out for lack of particularisation
  2. 2 Whether the committal application is an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the committal application should be struck out for delay

Ratio Decidendi

The committal application was sufficiently particularised to enable Mr Vik to understand the case against him, was not abusive or delayed, and did not require permission for allegations of false testimony under CPR 81. Amendments to the application were allowed, subject to safeguarding Mr Vik's right to silence by excluding particulars reliant solely on evidence not yet deployed.

Court Disposition

Strike out application dismissed; permission to amend committal application granted, subject to safeguarding respondent's right to silence.

Orders

  • Committal application not struck out.
  • DB granted permission to amend the application notice, excluding particulars reliant solely on respondent's undeployed evidence.