Contemnor Required To Attend An In Person Hearing For Cross Examination (Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc And Another)

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Law Firm: Gatehouse Chambers
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Arbitration & Dispute Resolution
• Author: Mr Phillip Patterson
• Published date: 18 September 2023

Dispute Resolution analysis: An admitted contemnor subject to a suspended warrant for committal has been ordered to attend in person for cross examination in relation to the assets of a company he controlled. His request to attend the hearing remotely by video link from Connecticut was refused.

Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc and another [2023] EWHC 2234 (Comm)

What are the practical implications of this case?

Since the start of the pandemic, Courts in England and Wales have become accustomed to considering the circumstances in which it is appropriate for hearings to be conducted remotely using video link technology. Whilst it has been widely accepted that this technology presents challenges, such as time lags, connection failures and cross talk, these inconveniences are typically weighed against the potential benefits of such hearings and the substantial inconvenience which they can help to avoid. This judgment suggests that such a balancing act applies difficulty in relation to the cross examination of contemnors in the context of suspended warrants of committal. The Court here held that the innocent party should not bear any risk of such technological failings and the contemnor should be required to attend in person, even if that means travelling from Connecticut and even if he asserts that substantial inconvenience would be caused to him by attending.

What was the background?

On 15 July 2022, Moulder J made a committal order against Mr Alexander Vik. She had been satisfied that Mr Vik had been guilty of contempt of Court in failing to comply with an order of Teare J dated 20 July 2015, pursuant to which Mr Vik was to produce certain documents and to attend court to provide information as to the means of the corporate Defendant, Sebastian Holdings Inc. The order committed Mr Vik to HMP Pentonville for a period of 20 months and ordered that a Warrant of Committal be issued to that effect. However, she suspended that committal in terms that "the warrant of committal remain in the Court Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, on condition that Mr Vik complies with the terms set out in Schedule B to this order". The terms set out in Schedule B provided that Mr Vik was to attend Court to be examined by Deutsche Bank on various matters. The Schedule indicated that, on attending court, Mr Vik was required to provide accurate answers to the best of his knowledge and belief to any questions asked of him in relation to those matters. The further...