Deutsche Bank AG has won an order requiring Monaco-based billionaire Alexander Vik to attend in person at the High Court in London in connection with a US$250 million judgment obtained in 2013 against Sebastian Holdings, Inc, one of Mr Vik’s shell company.
Mr Vik was found, following a three-week trial in 2022, to have committed multiple serious breaches of an order made under CPR Part 71 requiring him to provide information about the assets and liabilities of Sebastian Holdings. He was sentenced by Moulder J to 20 months’ imprisonment for contempt of court, suspended on condition that he comply with a wide-ranging remedial disclosure regime that included a further examination by Deutsche Bank before a High Court judge. His breaches included knowingly giving false evidence under oath and deliberately failing to provide documents required to be disclosed under the CPR Part 71 order.
Mr Vik subsequently lost his bid to overturn the conviction and sentence on appeal in February 2023. The Court of Appeal unanimously endorsed Moulder J’s contempt findings and sentence and dismissed Mr Vik’s criticisms of Moulder J’s decisions variously as “without substance” and “hopeless”.
The dismissal of Mr Vik’s appeal triggered a series of deadlines for the remedial disclosure exercise imposed as a condition of the suspension of his committal. The final step in that exercise was a two-day further examination which, under Moulder J’s committal order, Mr Vik was required to attend and give truthful and accurate answers to questions from Deutsche Bank and the Court.
After Mr Vik indicated an unwillingness to attend the further examination in person, Deutsche Bank applied for an order requiring his personal attendance. Mr Vik subsequently cross-applied under CPR 32.3 for permission to attend via video-link from Connecticut, USA. The application and cross-application were heard by Bryan J earlier this month.
In an important decision on the English Court’s contempt jurisdiction, Bryan J held that the conditions in a committal order constitute mandatory requirements that a contemnor is obliged to satisfy. The Judge rejected Mr Vik’s argument that compliance was optional, describing the contention as “unarguable”. He held that there was a strong public interest in ensuring that Mr Vik, as a convicted contemnor found to have repeatedly lied under oath, was examined in person.
Mr Justice Bryan also held that Mr Vik had failed to put forward any good reasons that would justify his remote attendance at the further examination. The Judge’s decision on this point provides important guidance on the application of the so-called Polanksi principle – from the decision of the House of Lords in Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd [2005] 1 WLR 637 – to the contempt context. Adopting a robust approach, Bryan J held that a contemnor in Mr Vik’s position suffered no denial of access to justice by being required to attend a hearing in person as a condition of a suspended committal sentence. Mr Vik could not rely on the risk that his suspended sentence would be activated as a reason not to enter the jurisdiction and attend the further examination in person.
Having succeeded in relation to both applications, Deutsche Bank obtained indemnity costs from Mr Vik. In addition, Mr Justice Bryan refused Mr Vik permission to appeal and certified his application for permission as totally without merit.
James MacDonald KC and Andrew McLeod acted for Deutsche Bank, instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP.
The judgment is available below.
View Judgment