LM-2023-000035 - [2025] EWHC 2168 (Comm)

I next consider the rate of interest to apply to the judgment debt over the post judgment period to payment. As the award is in Euros, I have a discretion as to rate pursuant to section 44A of the Administration of Justice Act 1970. The choice of rate again requires an application of the compensatory principle (see paragraph 79 of Kazakhstan v Zhunus [2018] EWHC 369).

Miss Campbell drew my attention to Britned v ABB [2018] EWHC 2913 (Ch) at paragraph 22, where Marcus Smith J awarded 8% post judgment interest on a foreign money judgment, thus treating the judgment as he would if it had been in Sterling (see Judgments Act 1838 section 17).

The post judgment rate enquiry is forward looking: what would it cost a person in broadly the same position as the claimant to borrow the money for which he has judgment? The only forward-looking rate I have is that provided by Mr Reay of 2.05%. That is (from paragraph 18 of his skeleton) the 12-month rate. It may be that the 2-week rate would have been more apposite because payment has been ordered to be made within 14 days.

Given the broad-brush approach I am entitled to take, I am satisfied that the post judgment rate should be 3.05%. The award of a rate of 8% would in my judgment overcompensate the Claimant. Miss Campbell submits that the Claimant is in fact borrowing the judgment sum in US Dollars at a rate of 8.5% so that a rate of 8% is not inappropriate. In my judgment, this approach falls into the same trap as Mr Reay’s submissions about currency fluctuation. Miss Campbell in effect, asks me to consider the actual cost of borrowing a currency which is not the currency of the judgment sum and to consider the actions of this particular Claimant. For the reasons given above, that approach is impermissible.