The Court of Appeal has allowed Deutsche Bank’s appeal in a landmark judgment on the Court’s inherent jurisdiction in the long-running litigation with billionaire businessman Alexander Vik and his corporate vehicle, Sebastian Holdings Inc (SHI).
In 2015, Mr Vik had been personally served within the jurisdiction with a Part 71 order requiring him, as a corporate officer of SHI, to attend an oral examination and provide truthful information about SHI’s assets. Although he attended the examination, in a succession of judgments the English courts have held that he repeatedly lied and withheld documents. This ultimately resulted in Mr Vik’s committal for contempt of court in 2022, which was suspended on terms he attend a further examination in relation to the topics on which he was held to have lied. The terms of the suspended committal order required Mr Vik’s further examination to take place before 24 August 2023 but the hearing was listed for 19-20 September 2023 on the common assumption that the suspended sentence would remain in effect until the examination had been concluded. In the event, however, the Court held that Mr Vik’s suspended sentence came to an end on 24 August 2023 and he did not need to attend the examination.
Deutsche Bank therefore made an application for a further order for Mr Vik’s examination, on the basis that Mr Vik had never complied with the original Part 71 Order and the Court therefore retained an inherent jurisdiction to make further orders to enforce its terms, including by ordering a further examination under Part 71. In a judgment handed down on 12 February 2025, Mrs Justice Cockerill dismissed that application: [2025] EWHC 283 (Comm), holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to order a further examination and, even if it had jurisdiction, it would be futile to order a further examination of Mr Vik and she would have declined to do so.
In a Judgment handed down on 12 May 2026, the Court of Appeal allowed Deutsche Bank’s appeal on all grounds. The Court of Appeal’s Judgment gives important guidance and much needed clarity to the extent of the Court’s inherent powers to make further orders in the event of non-compliance with an existing order.
In relation to the further examination of Mr Vik under Part 71 sought by DB, the Court of Appeal held that the English Court’s jurisdiction over Mr Vik did not come to an end merely because the first examination of Mr Vik under Part 71 had technically concluded; rather, as there had been non-compliance, the Court retained personal jurisdiction over Mr Vik and had an inherent power to make further orders to enforce compliance and protect the integrity of its processes.
The Court of Appeal also found that the Judge had erred in exercising her discretion not to make the order sought, by treating futility as decisive and failing to give sufficient weight to the strong public interest in enforcing court orders and deterring deliberate disobedience. The Court of Appeal considered that a further examination could still serve a legitimate purpose, particularly where the individual faces the risk of committal for fresh non-compliance.
The Court of Appeal therefore directed that a further examination order be made in respect of Mr Vik.
Sonia Tolaney KC, James MacDonald KC and Andrew Lodder acted for Deutsche Bank, instructed by Freshfields LLP.