Interest
Interest
Some limited issues arise in respect of interest.
Firstly, on the fees of Mr Blizzard, J&BH says that interest should only be payable on the net fees payable to Mr Blizzard, not the VAT element of those fees. The reason given is that A & V could have reduced its liability for VAT by setting this VAT liability against other sums by way of VAT which A & V should otherwise have paid to HMRC.
In my judgment, this was a point to be raised in respect of the arguments placed before me when I was considering the issues leading to my Sixth judgment, or by way of correction to my Sixth judgment. I cannot trace that this was done: in my view it is now too late for this point to be raised.
Accordingly, interest will be calculated on the full sum of £17,400.
The resulting amount is £3,428.04: there is a minor difference of £17.16 between the Parties. I take the lower figure.
Secondly, A & V has calculated interest on a sum due on the basis that I would correct the “error” I have discussed above. I have rejected the claim to correct that error: accordingly the amount upon which interest will be calculated is £95,466.61. This will be increased by £1,069.22 in respect of VAT.
Interest should be recalculated on this basis.
Thirdly, on damages there is a difference between the Parties of about £30 in respect of the interest payable on damages. This is de minimis, and I accept J&BH’s figure of £1,389.81.
The sums due to J&BH
I have already determined the basis upon which these should be calculated.
- Heading
- This judgment was handed down by the court remotely by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email and released to The National Archives. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 3 Oct
- The effect of the Fifth and Sixth Judgments
- The calculation of the sum due for the measured works
- VAT
- CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME
- Interest
- Conclusions
![HT-2023-000006 - [2024] EWHC 2516 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_yJUntHA.png)