Ineos Upstream Limited & Ors v Joseph Boyd & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1756 (Ch)
Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc & Anor
14 March 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 245
Court of Appeal
A bank won a big court case and was supposed to get its costs paid. The other side argued the bank was too slow in getting the costs officially assessed, so interest shouldn't be paid on the delayed payment. The court decided the interest only starts being counted from the moment the amount is finally decided – not when the court initially ordered payment. The bank wins, preventing an unfair loss of money due to the length of assessment.
Key Facts
- •Deutsche Bank AG (DB) obtained a judgment against Sebastian Holdings Inc (SHI) for US$243m in 2013, with an order for SHI to pay 85% of DB's costs on an indemnity basis, subject to detailed assessment.
- •A non-party costs order (NPCO) was made against Mr Vik in 2016 for the costs.
- •The cost assessment lasted an unprecedented 100 hearing days over three years, concluding in May 2023.
- •The Costs Judge disallowed 12 months' interest due to DB's delay in pursuing the assessment, resulting in a loss of approximately £775,000 for DB.
- •The appeal concerns the interpretation of s. 24(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 regarding when time starts running for limitation purposes on interest on costs where the order is for costs to be assessed.
Legal Principles
Statutory interpretation involves an objective assessment of the meaning a reasonable legislature would convey.
R(O) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 3 [2023] AC 255; Potter v Canada Square Operations Ltd [2023] UKSC 41 [2023] 3 WLR 963
The same words in an Act are presumed to have the same meaning; different words, different meanings. The weight depends on context.
Bennion, Bailey & Norbury on Statutory Interpretation 8th edn. section 21.3
Words are the primary source of meaning; external aids are secondary and cannot displace clear and unambiguous wording.
R(O) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Potter v Canada Square Operations Ltd (above)
In consolidating legislation, legislative history is only relevant if there's ambiguity in the statutory language.
R(O) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Potter v Canada Square Operations Ltd (above)
An order for costs to be assessed is a judgment debt carrying interest from the order date, not the assessment date.
Hunt v R M Douglas (Roofing) Ltd [1990] 2 AC 398
A costs order isn't enforceable until detailed assessment quantifies the liability.
Times Newspapers Ltd v Chohan [2001] 1 WLR 1859 at [33]
Section 24(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 bars recovery of interest arrears after six years from when the interest became due.
Limitation Act 1980, s.24(2)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
"Due" in s. 24(2) means payable (enforceable), not merely accrued. Interest on costs wasn't payable until quantified in the Final Costs Certificate. The policy of encouraging prompt enforcement of judgments supports this interpretation.
Similar Cases
Strategic Technologies PTE Ltd v Procurement Bureau of the Republic of China Ministry of National Defence
[2023] EWHC 754 (KB)
Tanka Thakali & Ors v Navin Kumar Gauchan & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3032 (SCCO)
Irena Ferme v Simon Matthew Gwinnutt
[2023] EWHC 2035 (Ch)
MGS v University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust
[2023] EWHC 1547 (KB)