Daniel Maurice Wagner v Bright Station Ventures Management Limited

The court has discretion to award pre-judgment interest, but the usual principle is that a party deprived of money due should receive compensation, generally measured by commercial borrowing rates. A company’s dormancy and absence of actual borrowing costs do not, without more, displace that principle.

Where mutual liabilities are awarded in different currencies, interest may be calculated separately in each currency to judgment, followed by conversion, netting and judgment interest on the resulting net sum. An application for permission to appeal must ordinarily be made at the decision hearing. A stay pending appeal depends on the risk of injustice, including the practical risk that sums paid will not be recoverable.

The judgment determined consequential matters following an earlier substantive judgment dated 19 March 2025. The parties disputed the calculation of interest on Sterling and Dollar awards, including the applicable rates and whether the liabilities should be netted from an earlier date.

The claimant also sought permission to appeal the earlier judgment and a stay of execution pending any appeal. The central issues were the appropriate interest methodology, whether the court retained jurisdiction to grant permission after hand-down, and whether enforcement pending appeal created a sufficient risk of injustice.

1. Interest. The court awarded interest on sums found due. The general principle is that a party kept out of money should be compensated for the loss of its use, ordinarily by reference to a commercial borrowing rate. The absence of actual borrowing costs by a dormant company did not negate that loss (paras [8]–[9]).
2. Because the judgment debts were expressed in Sterling and Dollars, interest was to be calculated separately in the relevant currency up to 19 March 2025. The conventional rates were Base Rate plus 1% for Sterling and US Prime Rate for Dollars. The Dollar amount was then to be converted, the liabilities netted, and judgment interest applied to the resulting net Sterling judgment debt (paras [10]–[13]).
3. Permission to appeal. Under CPR r. 52.3(2)(a), an application for permission must ordinarily be made at the hearing at which the decision was made. The hand-down of a reserved judgment constituted the decision hearing. Without a formal adjournment for the purpose of making the application, the lower court was no longer seized of the matter and was functus officio. The court therefore lacked jurisdiction to grant permission. In any event, the proposed grounds merely re-argued issues already determined (paras [14]–[19]).
4. Stay of execution. The discretion under CPR 52.16 required assessment of the risk of injustice if a stay were granted or refused. The claimant’s concern that the defendant, apparently dormant and impecunious, might be unable to repay sums if the appeal succeeded created a significant risk of injustice. There was no comparable risk to the defendant from a limited stay. A stay was therefore ordered pending the Court of Appeal’s determination of the claimant’s application for permission to appeal (paras [20]–[26]).
5. The court found for the defendant on interest, refused permission for want of jurisdiction, and stayed execution of the judgment, including the net payment and interim costs payment.

The judgment itself records that the claimant had also sought permission from the Court of Appeal. The High Court stayed execution pending the Court of Appeal’s determination of that application. No appellate decision is stated.