It had been argued by the claimant in written submissions (although not maintained orally) that an order for payment of pre-judgment interest on costs should never be made. As to an award of interest on costs:- ‘In any event in principle there seems no reason why the Court should not do so where a party has had to put up money paying its solicitors and been out of the use of that money in the meanwhile.’ It was ordered that the award of interest should run as from the date or dates of solicitors’ invoices.
The defendants had argued for a rate of interest of 6% per annum to reflect the fact that they would have had to pay 2% over base rate if they had borrowed the money from their bank. Waller LJ answered: ‘The question is whether the evidence in this case demonstrates that a rate greater than 1% above base rate should be applied. Evidence of what a bank might have charged if money had been borrowed is not we think sufficient. It is not clear to us what takes Blackburn outside the norm to which the 1% above base rate presumption applies. In our view the appropriate course in relation to these costs is to make an award of interest at 1% over base rate the interest to run from the date when the costs were paid.’
Judges:
Waller LJ
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 889
Links:
Statutes:
Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(6)(g)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See also – Bim Kemi Ab v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd CA 13-Feb-2003
. .
See also – Bim Kemi v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd CA 3-Apr-2001
The question was the degree of connection which must be shown between (1) a claim for unliquidated damages for breach of a contract and (2) a cross-claim for unliquidated damages for breach of a different contract between the same parties, in order . .
See also – Bim Kemi Ab v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd ComC 30-Jan-2002
. .
See also – Bim Kemi Ab v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd SCCO 24-Jun-2003
. .
Cited – Jaura v Ahmed CA 21-Feb-2002
The applicant sought damages for the wrongful termination of her lease by the respondent. The landlords re-entered in default of payment of the rent. The premises had been sub-let, and she sought damages for the loss of rental profits.
Held: . .
Cited by:
See also – Bim Kemi Ab v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd CA 13-Feb-2003
. .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others ChD 23-Jan-2004
. .
See also – Bim Kemi Ab v Blackburn Chemicals Limited ComC 6-Feb-2004
. .
See Also – Blackburn Chemicals Ltd v Bim Kemi Ab CA 10-Nov-2004
The parties entered into exclusive cross marketing agreements. The defendant resisted enforcement of the contract saying it was void under European law, being contrary to Article 81. The parties were alleged to have agreed to make cross purchases. . .
Cited – Jones and Others v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and Another QBD 3-May-2013
The claimants sought an order for pre-judgment interest on the disbursements incurred in this group litigation. The clients were liable for payment of the disbursements under the conditional fee agreements, and in this case these amounted to over . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Costs
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184063