Judgment had been first given, but reversed on appeal. The money had been paid following judgment. The appeal court had ordered the return of the money and the question was whether there should also be interest on the money.
Held: Lord Cairns: ‘It is contended, on the part of the Respondents here, that the principal sum being restored to the present petitioners, they have no right to recover from them any interest. It is obvious that, if this is so, injury, and very grave injury, will be done to the Petitioners. They will by reason of an act of the Court have paid a sum which it is now ascertained was ordered to be paid by mistake and wrongfully. They will recover that sum after the lapse of a considerable time, but they will recover it without the ordinary fruits which are derived from the enjoyment of money. On the other hand, those fruits will have been enjoyed, or may have been enjoyed, by the person who by mistake and by wrong obtained possession of the money under a judgment which has been reversed. So far, therefore, as principle is concerned, their Lordships have no doubt or hesitation in saying that injustice will be done to the Petitioners, and that the perfect judicial determination which it must be the object of all Courts to arrive at, will not have been arrived at unless the persons who have had their money improperly taken from them have the money restored to them, with interest, during the time that the money has been withheld.’
Judges:
Lord Cairns
Citations:
(1871) LR 3 PC 465
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Smithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others (No 2) CA 23-May-2006
The parties to the action had given cross undertakings to support the grant of an interim injunction. A third party subsequently applied to be joined, and now sought to take advantage of the cross undertakings to claim the losses incurred through . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.242618