UK case law

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

[2023] EWHC COMM 1425 · High Court (Financial List) · 2023

Get your free legal insight →Email to a colleague
Get your free legal insight on this case →

The verbatim text of this UK judgment. Sourced directly from The National Archives Find Case Law. Not an AI summary, not a paraphrase — every word below is the original ruling, under Crown copyright and the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Full judgment

1. MR JUSTICE PICKEN: I am now dealing with post judgment interest.

2. Ms Prevezer invites me either to apply the Judgments Act rate of 8%, albeit she recognises that that is not directly applicable given that the judgment is in a foreign currency.

3. Her primary position, however, is that I should consider a higher rate through essentially application of the same approach as I adopted in my last ruling, when arriving at an uplifted pre-judgment interest rate of Euribor plus 2% plus 3%, in other words 5% over Euribor.

4. I am not persuaded that it is appropriate to do that.

5. It is clear from the authorities, in particular Barnett , to which I have previously referred (at [13]) and Novoship UK v Nikitin [2014] EWCA Civ 908 as referred to in the Barnett case, that the appropriate approach at the post-judgment stage is to have regard to the compensatory principle.

6. Having regard to that and bearing in mind what I had to say in my judgment concerning interest, it seems to me that the right approach is to apply no uplift and to maintain Euribor plus 2%.

7. Ms Prevezer notes that such an approach, in contrast to an uplifted interest rate, provides no incentive to the Republic to make payment on a speedy basis. However, that is not, from what I can detect, the appropriate approach. The appropriate approach is to have regard to the compensatory principle and, on that basis, I do not consider that a further uplift is warranted.

8. I should say that it is common ground that what I cannot do is merely apply the Part 36 uplift in a context now which is different to the Part 36 context, namely post-judgment, where whatever should or should not have been done as regards the Part 36 offer, is the past. What is now our focus is the post-judgment context. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: [email protected]

Palladian Partners LP & Ors. v The Republic of Argentina & Anor. [2023] EWHC COMM 1425 — UK case law · My AI Credit Check