![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Secretary of State for the Department of Energy And Climate Change & Anor v Jones & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 363 (27 March 2014) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/363.html Cite as: [2014] 3 Costs LO 541, [2014] EWCA Civ 363 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THE
COURT
OF
APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
HIGH COURT
OF
JUSTICE
Queen's Bench Division
Swift J
![]() ![]() Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
LADY JUSTICE GLOSTER
and
LADY JUSTICE SHARP
____________________
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Coal Products Limited |
Appellants |
|
- and - |
||
Jeffrey Jones (and others) |
Respondents |
____________________
for the
Appellants
Benjamin Williams (instructed by Hugh James) for the
Respondents
Hearing date : 21 January 2014
____________________
OF
JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
Lady Justice Sharp :
Introduction
Relevant background
The
hearing and
the
judgment below
"24.The
defendants' argument was that
the
imposition
of the
credit charges was a device to enable Hugh James to charge interest on
the
monies advanced on
the
claimants' behalf. It is
of
course true that, if
the
credit agreements had not existed, no interest would have been payable. However it does not follow that
the
claim
for
interest is in effect a claim by Hugh James, rather than by
the
claimants.
The
position is in reality no different from that which would have existed if
the
claimants had taken out loans from a bank to fund their disbursements and had agreed to pay interest to
the
bank. In that event, they would clearly have been entitled to claim from
the
defendant
the
monies paid by way
of
interest. In
the
PWGL, Hugh James fulfilled
the
role
of
a bank but on terms more advantageous to
the
claimants than those which would have been offered by
the
bank.
25.The
defendants relied on
the
fact that, pursuant to
the
credit agreements,
the
claimants were not required actually to pay out any interest as their claims proceeded and would not have been required to do so at all if their claims had failed. However,
the
fact that, under
the
credit agreements,
the
claimants' liability to pay
the
credit charges was contingent on
the
success
of
their claims does not seem to me to alter
the
nature
of the
agreements.
The
fact is that
the
agreements provided that, since
the
claims have succeeded,
the
claimants are liable to pay credit charges. That being
the
case – and absent any suggestion that
the
agreed rate
of
interest was excessive or unreasonable – I consider that
the
appropriate rate
of
interest on pre-judgment disbursements is 4 % above base rate."
The
contentions on this appeal
Discussion
Lady Justice Gloster:
Lord Justice Patten: