VS MSN 36118 Cav Designated Activity Company v Spicejet Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Charles Hollander |
| Judgment Date | 09 June 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 1412 (Comm) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CL-2022-000479 |
[2023] EWHC 1412 (Comm)
DEPUTY JUDGE Charles Hollander KC
(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Case No: CL-2022-000479
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
COMMERCIAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Decided on written submissions
JUDGMENT ON CONSEQUENTIAL MATTERS
This judgment was handed down by the Judge remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email and release to The National Archives. The date for the hand-down is deemed to be Friday 9 th June 2023.
Charles Hollander KC:
This short judgment deals with consequential matters arising after I gave summary judgment in favour of the Claimants and refused the Defendants permission to appeal. The parties agreed that I should deal with it by written submissions. I received and have considered written submissions from both parties.
Interest
Clause 9.2 of the Lease provides:
“If Lessee fails to pay any amount payable under this Agreement on the due date, Lessee shall pay to Lessor on demand from time to time interest (both before and after judgment) on that amount, from the due date (or, in the case amounts expressed to be payable on demand, from the date of such demand) to the date of payment in full by Lessee to Lessor, at the Default Rate. All such interest will be calculated on the basis of the actual number of days elapsed and a 360 day year. Interest payable pursuant to this Clause 9.2 which is unpaid at the end of each such period shall thereafter itself bear interest at the Default Rate or the maximum allowed under Indian law.””
‘ Default Rate’ is defined in clause 1.1 as “ in relation to any overdue amount, for the relevant period, LIBOR plus 3%”. As set out in paragraph 13 of the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant claims a default rate of 3% due to the complexity of calculating the default rate by reference to a discontinued LIBOR rate. There is no objection, subject to the point below, to that.
The question is whether the Claimants are entitled to compound interest. They claim that Clause 9.2 provides for it to be compounded on a monthly basis. The Defendants say (i) there is no plea in the Particulars of Claim in relation to compound interest (ii) there is no such claim in the summary judgment application (iii) Clause 9.2 does not provide for monthly compounding.
The Particulars of Claim refers expressly to Clause 9.2. It is clear that Clause 9.2 permits compounding: “ Interest payable pursuant to this Clause 9.2 which is unpaid at the end of each such period shall thereafter itself bear interest.” Moreover, the accompanying schedule claims on the basis of compound interest. In those circumstances, permitting the action to continue for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial