header-logo header-logo

26 May 2017
Issue: 7747 / Categories: Features , Civil way , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Civil way: 26 May 2017

Guess the interest rate; coughing gender pay; Ooops; & enforcement tort.

OF INTEREST

Generally, the Commercial Court has historically awarded pre-judgment interest at base rate plus 1%, looking at the rate at which the successful party could borrow commercially. But its guide tells us that these days, there is no presumption that this is the appropriate measure of a commercial rate of interest. In Kitcatt and others v MMS UK Holdings Ltd and another [2017] EWHC 786 (Comm) the claimants had collected a judgment for £2.6m. They ambitiously sought interest at base plus 5%, relying on Attrill v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd [2012] EWHC 1468 (QB) where non-commercial claimants secured base plus 5% and Reinhard v Ondra LLP [2015] EWHC 2943 (Ch) in which base plus 3% was awarded. Males J gave them base plus 2%. The rates at which a commercial concern would be able to borrow were not available to the claimants as individuals. However, they were successful business people who might be able to achieve a better rate than some other individual

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll