Deutsche Bank AG and another (Respondents) v Vik (Appellant)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0110

Parties

Appellant(s)

ALEXANDER VIK

Respondent(s)

Sebastian Holdings Inc (“SHI”)

DEUTSCHE BANK AG

Issue

This appeal is concerned with three issues: (1) Does the High Court have the inherent power to make a second order requiring a judgment debtor, or the officer of a judgment debtor, to attend Court for examination as to the means of the judgment debtor to satisfy its judgment debt, in circumstances where the Court has previously made such an order under CPR Part 71 but no longer has the power to make a fresh such order? (2) Must a judge, when exercising a discretionary power, explain any departure in his or her approach from that taken on an earlier exercise of discretion in the same or related proceedings? (3) Where a person is joined to proceedings for the purposes of costs only pursuant to CPR 46.2, and gives an address for service in that context, do they thereby agree to be served at that address with applications in the proceedings that relate to matters other than costs?

Facts

The Appellant, Mr Vik, is a Monaco-based billionaire who was formerly the sole director and owner of Sebastian Holdings Inc (“SHI”). SHI was the Appellant’s personal trading vehicle and used prime brokerage services provided by the Respondent, Deutsche Bank. In 2009 the Respondent brought proceedings against SHI to recover unpaid sums which were due to it, and in 2013 SHI was ordered to pay the respondent $243 million (the “Judgment Debt”). The Judgment Debt was never paid. In 2015, the Respondent obtained an order under CPR 71.2 which required the Appellant, as sole director of SHI, to attend Court for questioning as to SHI’s means to pay the Judgment Debt (the “2015 Order”). The Appellant did so on 11 December 2015. It was later found that he had lied about the whereabouts and nature of SHI’s current and former assets. In 2022 he was found in contempt of court and, by way of committal order, sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment suspended on condition of his attending Court to be further examined. It has since been determined that on a proper construction of the committal order, the suspended sentence which it imposed expired before that further examination was scheduled to take place. The Appellant was accordingly not obliged to attend it. The Respondent therefore sought an order for further examination of the Appellant. It did so under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to make an order ancillary to the 2015 Order. The High Court refused that application on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction to do so. The Court of Appeal unanimously disagreed. The Appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.