Palladian Partners LP & Ors v The Republic of Argentina & Anor

[2023] EWHC 1422 (Comm)

Case details

Case citations
[2023] EWHC 1422 (Comm)
Court
High Court (Financial List)
Judgment date
9 June 2023
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Civil procedure Interest on judgment debts Part 36 offers
Keywords
Part 36 offer enhanced interest interest uplift CPR 36.17(4)(a) non-financial litigation costs borrowing costs amount of claim discretion
Outcome
application granted (additional interest uplift of 3% awarded)
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 36.17(4)(a), enhanced interest following rejection of a Part 36 offer compensates the successful claimant for non-financial costs associated with the litigation. The defendant’s borrowing costs are generally irrelevant. The amount of the claim is relevant, since a rate suitable for a modest or middling claim need not suit a very large award. A 4% uplift was therefore reduced to 3%.

Factual background

The claimants obtained judgment for approximately €1.33 billion arising from the 2013 Reference Year payment. The court had determined that the primary interest rate was 2% above Euribor and that it would not be unjust to disapply the consequences of an unaccepted Part 36 offer.

The ruling concerned the additional uplift under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 36.17(4)(a). The claimants sought a further 5.34%, alternatively 4%, relying on authorities awarding 4% uplifts. The issue was the appropriate additional rate in light of the award’s size and the compensatory purpose of the rule.

Held

  1. Outcome. An additional uplift of 3% above Euribor was awarded, producing total interest of 5% above Euribor when combined with the previously determined 2% rate.
  2. Rule 36.17(4)(a) concerns compensation for the successful claimant’s non-financial litigation costs, including stress, time and inconvenience. The Republic’s borrowing costs were not the appropriate measure.
  3. The amount of the claim was relevant. A 4% uplift awarded in cases involving materially smaller claims should not be followed slavishly for an award of approximately €1.33 billion.
  4. The court exercised a broad discretion and rejected both the proposed 4% uplift and the defendant’s proposed rate of 1% or at most 2%. The appropriate additional uplift was 3%.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.