References: [1985] AC 104
Coram: Lord Brandon, Lord Bridge
The house decided against altering the rule in Page -v- Newman. ‘The common law does not award general damages for delay in payment of a debt beyond the date when it is contractually due’ The power given to the court under s 35A is discretionary. It does not have the character of a substantive right. (Brandon) A judge ‘ . . already has a statutory remedy. What is more, the new cause of action [argued for] . . would constitute a remedy as of right for a creditor whereas the statutory remedy would remain discretionary only. There would accordingly exist . . two parallel remedies, one as of right and the other discretionary. It is, in my view, plainly to be inferred, from the form of the relevant provisions of the Acts of 1934 and 1982 that Parliament has consistently regarded the award of interest on debts as a remedy to which creditors should not be entitled as of right, but only as a matter of discretion. That being the manifest policy of the legislature, I do not consider that your Lordships should create . . a rival system of remedies, which because they would be remedies as of right, would be inconsistent with that manifest policy.’
This case cites:
- Cited – Page -v- Newman ((1829) 9 B&C 378)
Under common law ‘the long-established rule that interest is not due on money secured by a written instrument, unless it appears on the face of the instrument that interest was intended to be paid, or unless it be implied from the usage of trade, as . . - Cited – Chandris -v- Isbrandtsen-Moller Co Inc CA ([1951] KB 240, (1950) 84 Ll LR 347)
The court considered whether an arbitrator could award interest in circumstances where section 3 of the 1934 Act expressly conferred such a power on ‘the court’ in proceedings tried in a ‘court of record’.
Held: Although section 3(1) of the . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Mohammed Aslam -v- South Bedfordshire District Council CA (Times 18-Jan-01, Gazette 11-Jan-01, Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 355)
The claimant appealed an award of the Lands Tribunal of compensation for an order discontinuing his use as a slaughterhouse of premises of which he held a long lease. The tribunal had applied a discount for wastage on sheep carcasses of 25%, but had . . - Cited – Sempra Metals Ltd -v- Inland Revenue Commissioners and Another HL (Bailii, [2007] UKHL 34, [2007] 3 WLR 354, Times 25-Jul-07, [2008] 1 AC 561, [2008] Eu LR 1, [2007] 4 All ER 657, [2007] STC 1559, [2007] BTC 509, [2008] Bus LR 49, [2007] All ER (D) 294, 151 Sol Jo 985)
The parties agreed that damages were payable in an action for restitution, but the sum depended upon to a calculation of interest. They disputed whether such interest should be calculated on a simple or compound basis. The company sought compound . . - Cited – Boake Allen Ltd and others -v- HM Revenue & Customs CA (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 25, Times 10-Feb-06, [2006] STC 606, [2006] BTC 266, 8 ITL Rep 819, [2006] STI 32, [2006] Eu LR 755)
The claimant companies had paid corporation tax under rules which had later been found to be discriminatory. They now sought repayment by virtue of double taxation agreements with the countries in which the parent companies were based.
Held: . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 16-Dec-15 Ref: 185178