SU Consultancy Ltd v Gurmit Singh & Ors

Where damages compensate for the value of property and an equitable account concerns profits generated by that property, the remedies must be applied so as to prevent double recovery. Payment of the assessed value may therefore bring a remedial constructive trust to an end, or justify declining further recovery of profits from the asset.

Interest on costs ordinarily runs from the date of judgment under Judgments Act 1838 section 17(1) and CPR Part 40.8(1). A departure requires a reasoned basis; general assertions of fairness are insufficient.

The judgment concerned consequential orders following earlier judgments in litigation between SU Consultancy Ltd, Miura Distribution Ltd and associated individuals and companies. Miura had obtained damages for unlawful means conspiracy, assessed by reference to the value of its business in July 2020, together with an order for an account of profits under a conceded constructive trust.

The parties disputed the end date of the account, the date from which interest should run on costs, and the scope of the Relevant Books of Account required for the account. The central issues were whether payment of the damages extinguished or limited Miura’s entitlement to the business and continuing profits, and whether there was sufficient reason to depart from the ordinary rule on interest.

1. Account of profits. The damages claim and the constructive-trust account arose from different legal bases and were cumulative in principle. Miura was not required to elect merely because it pursued both remedies.
2. That did not permit double recovery. The constructive trust was treated as remedial, arising to address the unauthorised transfer of Miura’s property. Once Miura received damages representing the value of the business, the underlying rationale for requiring SU to return the business or account for later profits fell away.
3. Accordingly, the account was to end on the date when Miura’s damages for the value of the business were satisfied. The result followed either from the principles underlying the trust or from the Court’s discretion in granting equitable relief.
4. Interest on costs. Under section 17(1) of the Judgments Act 1838 and CPR Part 40.8(1), the ordinary rule was that interest ran from judgment rather than assessment. Applying Hunt v RM Douglas (Roofing) Ltd [1990] 1 AC 398, a departure did not require exceptional circumstances, but did require a proper reason. Fairness asserted in general terms was insufficient. Interest therefore ran from 13 December 2024, subject to the Costs Judge’s discretion on assessment and any further order.
5. The bracketed words in the definition of Relevant Books of Account were excluded. The agreed account process, including disclosure of source materials and data relied upon, was sufficient to secure production of relevant documents without the more extensive definition sought by Miura.