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

Post-judgment interest is governed by the compensatory principle. The court should assess the appropriate rate in the post-judgment context and should not impose an additional uplift merely to incentivise prompt payment. A Part 36 uplift cannot simply be transferred to the post-judgment stage, since the relevant offer-related conduct belongs to the earlier Part 36 context. Where judgment is given in a foreign currency, the statutory judgment rate may not be directly applicable.

The ruling concerned the rate of post-judgment interest payable on a judgment in a foreign currency. The claimants sought either application of the statutory 8% judgment rate or a further uplift to the Euribor-based rate previously awarded for pre-judgment interest. The issue was whether post-judgment interest should include an additional uplift to encourage payment, and whether a Part 36 uplift could be applied at that stage.

1. Post-judgment interest. The court applied the compensatory principle identified in Barnett and in Novoship UK v Nikitin [2014] EWCA Civ 908. The proper approach was to consider compensation in the post-judgment context, having regard to the court’s earlier reasoning on interest.
2. The statutory 8% Judgments Act rate was not directly applicable because the judgment was expressed in a foreign currency. The court therefore maintained the existing rate of Euribor plus 2%, without any further uplift.
3. The claimants’ argument that a higher rate was justified as an incentive to secure speedy payment was rejected. The compensatory principle, rather than a punitive or incentive-based approach, governed the assessment.
4. A Part 36 uplift could not simply be applied after judgment. Part 36 addressed a different procedural context, and matters concerning what should have been done in relation to the offer were past once the court was dealing with post-judgment interest.

Post-judgment interest was accordingly set at Euribor plus 2%.