Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, 349 Conn. 120 (2024)

Citation: Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, 349 Conn. 120 (2024)
Parent Document: Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, 349 Conn. 120 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-05-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131755/deutsche-bank-ag-v-vik/ ↗

Full Text

2,466 chars

speak freely outweighs the risk that individuals will
          occasionally abuse the privilege by making false and
          malicious statements. . . . Participants in a judicial
          process must be able to testify or otherwise take part
          without being hampered by fear of defamation [or other
          retaliatory litigation]. . . . [In] determining whether a
          statement is made in the course of a judicial proceeding
          . . . the court must decide as a matter of law whether
          the [alleged statement is] sufficiently relevant to the
          issues involved in . . . [the] proceeding, so as to qual-
          ify for the privilege.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quota-
          tion marks omitted.) Hopkins v. O’Connor, 282 Conn.
          821, 838–39, 925 A.2d 1030 (2007). ‘‘The test for rele-
          vancy is generous, and ‘judicial proceeding’ has been
          defined liberally to encompass much more than civil
          litigation or criminal trials.’’ Id., 839.
             This court has ‘‘recognized a distinction between
          attempting to impose liability [on] a participant in a
          judicial proceeding for the words used therein and
          attempting to impose liability [on] a litigant for his
          improper use of the judicial system itself. . . . In this
          regard, we have refused to apply absolute immunity to
          causes of action alleging the improper use of the judicial
          system.’’ (Citation omitted.) MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti,
          supra, 310 Conn. 629. Thus, we have held that ‘‘the
          litigation privilege does not bar claims for abuse of
          process, vexatious litigation, and malicious prosecu-
          tion.’’ Dorfman v. Smith, supra, 342 Conn. 592. We
          have done so because these claims seek to ‘‘hold an
          individual liable for . . . the improper use of the judi-
          cial process for an illegitimate purpose, namely, to
          inflict injury [on] another individual in the form of
          unfounded actions.’’ MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti, 631;
          see also id. (‘‘as a matter of public policy, we will not
          encourage [the improper use of the courts] by affording
          it the protection of [the litigation privilege]’’). We have
          treated these claims differently in part because of
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 19

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text