BL-2017-000665 - [2025] EWHC 2909 (Ch)

There was no issue between the parties that, on the basis of the findings made in the Judgment, the Defendants have caused the Bank harm to the extent of the Relevant Drawdowns less the real value of the Transferred Assets. This is the starting point for quantifying the amount of the compensation to which the Bank is entitled. The Bank also pleaded a claim that it had suffered the additional harm of being deprived of that sum for the period between the date of the harm and the date of judgment. It contended that the purpose of an award of pre-judgment interest is to compensate the Bank for that additional harm.

The Bank’s case on this issue was explained in its written closing submissions, but it was not developed in the oral submissions at the end of the trial. In paragraph [2025] of the Judgment, I explained that any dispute on interest would have to be determined at a further hearing consequential on the Judgment.

The Bank’s primary case is that it is entitled to compound interest on the judgment sum for the period up to 30 July 2025 and simple interest thereafter until payment. It submitted that, if it is wrong about its entitlement to compound interest, it is entitled to simple interest in the alternative. Although there are a number of other elements of the claim to interest which are in dispute, it is convenient to divide the issue into three parts: pre-judgment compound interest, pre-judgment simple interest and post-judgment interest. There is also a separate issue relating to the payment of interest on costs which I shall deal with later in this judgment.