Palladian Partners LP & Ors. v The Republic of Argentina & Anor.
1. MR JUSTICE PICKEN: I am now dealing with post judgment interest. 2. Ms Prevezer invites me either to apply the Judgments Act rate of 8%, albeit she recognises that that is not directly applicable given that the judgment is in a foreign currency. 3. Her primary position, however, is that I should consider a higher rate through essentially application...
2 min de lecture · 370 mots
1. MR JUSTICE PICKEN: I am now dealing with post judgment interest. 2. Ms Prevezer invites me either to apply the Judgments Act rate of 8%, albeit she recognises that that is not directly applicable given that the judgment is in a foreign currency. 3. Her primary position, however, is that I should consider a higher rate through essentially application of the same approach as I adopted in my last ruling, when arriving at an uplifted pre-judgment interest rate of Euribor plus 2% plus 3%, in other words 5% over Euribor. 4. I am not persuaded that it is appropriate to do that. 5. It is clear from the authorities, in particular Barnett, to which I have previously referred (at [13]) and Novoship UK v Nikitin [2014] EWCA Civ 908 as referred to in the Barnett case, that the appropriate approach at the post-judgment stage is to have regard to the compensatory principle. 6. Having regard to that and bearing in mind what I had to say in my judgment concerning interest, it seems to me that the right approach is to apply no uplift and to maintain Euribor plus 2%. 7. Ms Prevezer notes that such an approach, in contrast to an uplifted interest rate, provides no incentive to the Republic to make payment on a speedy basis. However, that is not, from what I can detect, the appropriate approach. The appropriate approach is to have regard to the compensatory principle and, on that basis, I do not consider that a further uplift is warranted. 8. I should say that it is common ground that what I cannot do is merely apply the Part 36 uplift in a context now which is different to the Part 36 context, namely post-judgment, where whatever should or should not have been done as regards the Part 36 offer, is the past. What is now our focus is the post-judgment context. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: [email protected]
Sources officielles : consulter la page source
Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).
Articles similaires
A propos de cette decision
Décisions similaires
Royaume-Uni
First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) – Information Rights
Beacon Counselling Trust v The Information Commissioner & Anor
Introduction to the Appeal 1. On 23 May 2024, the Appellant submitted a request (“the Request”) to the Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) for copies of correspondence making reference to the Appellant, which had been sent to or from a named person at the Trust from 1 February 2023 to the date of the Request. 2....
Royaume-Uni
High Court (Chancery Division)
Kalaivani Jaipal Kirishani v George Major
Sir Anthony Mann : Introduction 1. This is an appeal from an order of HHJ Gerald sitting in the County Court at Central London dated 23rd December 2024 in which he dismissed two of three claims made by Ms Kirishana as claimant against her former cohabitee Mr Major. The claims were for a contribution to household and other domestic expenses,...
Royaume-Uni
High Court (Insolvency and Companies List)
Joanna Rich v JDDR Capital Limited
ICC JUDGE AGNELLO KC: Introduction 1. This is the judgment in relation to an application to set aside a statutory demand against Mrs Joanna Rich (Mrs Rich) and a petition against Mr Clive Rich (Mr Rich) relating to the same debt claimed under a personal guarantee provided by them in relation to a loan granted to LawBit Limited (Lawbit). Mr...