(1) ACLBDD Holdings Ltd v (1) Ruedi Staechelin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Morgan |
| Judgment Date | 06 March 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 428 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HC2014000468 |
| Date | 06 March 2018 |
[2018] EWHC 428 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Morgan
Case No: HC2014000468
Jonathan Cohen QC and Ashley Cukier (instructed by Grosvenor Law) for the Claimants
John Wardell QC and James McCreath (instructed by Lipman Karas LLP) for the Defendants
Judgment Approved
On 16 January 2018, I handed down judgment in this case: see [2018] EWHC 44 (Ch). Following judgment, I heard argument on a number of consequential points and I made an order which provided that (so far as now relevant):
1) Judgment be entered for de Pury & de Pury LLP (“the LLP”) against the Defendants for $10 million (“the Judgment Debt”);
2) The Judgment Debt was to be bear interest at 3% above Bank of England base rate from the date on which the Judgment Debt had originally become due until the date of the judgment;
3) The Judgment Debt together with interest as aforesaid was referred to as “the Judgment Sum”;
4) The Defendants were entitled to make payment of the Judgment Sum in US dollars or the sterling equivalent at the time of payment;
5) The Defendants were to pay the LLP's costs of the action, save for certain specified costs;
6) The Claimants were to pay the Defendants' costs of certain specified matters;
7) The costs variously ordered were to bear interest at 3% above Bank of England base rate from specified dates.
At the hearing on 16 January 2018, there was discussion as to the rate of interest payable on the Judgment Sum following judgment. The parties appeared to assume that the rate of interest would be 8% pursuant to section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838. I suggested to the parties that the matter would instead be governed by section 44A of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 as the Judgment Sum was expressed in US dollars. Both parties then wished to be allowed to make written submissions as to the rate of interest to be awarded in accordance with section 44A of the 1970 Act. I gave directions accordingly. Thereafter, I duly received submissions as to the appropriate rate of interest. This judgment deals with that issue.
Before addressing the submissions made by the parties in relation to this issue, it is helpful to refer to my reasons for awarding interest at 3% above Bank of England base rate on the Judgment Debt and also to refer to the nature of the discretion conferred by section 44A of the 1970 Act.
My award of interest on the Judgment Debt was made in the exercise of my discretion under section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981. I awarded interest in order to provide fair compensation to the LLP for being kept out of its money. When selecting the rate of interest, I took into account certain offers of settlement which had been made on behalf of ACLBDD, rather than the LLP, and in that respect I had regard to the comments made in Petrotrade Inc v Texaco Ltd (Note) [2002] 1 WLR 947 at [64], [74], [77], [85] and [86]. Although the Judgment Debt was expressed in US dollars, neither party suggested that that was a material matter when assessing fair compensation for the purposes of section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981. Neither party suggested that I should be influenced by the rate of interest which could be earned by investing the amount of the Judgment Debt in 6-month US Treasury Bills nor influenced by the cost of borrowing in the United States, for example at the US Prime Rate.
The nature of the discretion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deborah Head (Executrix of the Estate of Michael Head, deceased) v The Culver Heating Company Ltd
...that which is ordinarily required to compensate a claimant for being kept out of her money (see ACLBDD Holdings Ltd v Staechelin [2018] EWHC 428 (Ch) per Morgan J at [8]). The judgment rate (as it currently stands) is significantly higher than available guaranteed investment rates, and 80 ......
-
Judgment Debt - ACLBDD Holdings v Staechelin
...Alert - [2018] EWHC 428 (Ch) Judge decides rate of interest on a judgment debt which is in a foreign The rate of interest on a judgment debt is usually 8% but section 44A of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 provides that the court can order a different rate in relation to a judgment i......