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

For the purposes of CPR 36.17(4)(a)

The ruling concerned the interest uplift under CPR 36.17(4)(a)

1. The pleading objection failed. The Particulars of Claim disclosed a claim for interest. Its position in the prayer, before the reference to specific performance, was immaterial. The Claim Form also referred to interest on damages or other sums awarded pursuant to section 35(a) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The objection had additionally been raised late, despite the draft order expressly accepting that interest was payable and the point not having been taken at trial.
2. CPR 36.17(4)(a) applied. The draft order required the Republic, where the payment conditions were met, to make a payment amount and then to pay interest. Although the order was framed as one for specific performance, it therefore included an obligation to pay a sum. It followed that the case fell within the provision and the interest uplift was appropriate.
3. Alternative observation. Even if the order had referred only to specific performance and not expressly to payment, the judge indicated reluctance to accept the Republic’s submission. The apparent purpose of Part 36 was to create sensible consequences for rejecting an offer, including an interest uplift. The decision, however, was founded on the express payment obligation in the order.

The ruling followed an earlier judgment by Mr Justice Picken, which had addressed the 2013 reference year and related orders. No appeal is mentioned.