Calokerinos, Executor of the Estate of the late George Sclavos v Yesilhat; Yesilhat v Calokerinos, Executor of the Estate of the late George Sclavos (No. 4)

In this matter, the plaintiff sought to determine the amount owed by the defendants, one a natural person and the other a corporation, following a judgment in her favour. The defendants contested the consequential relief, arguing that the amount claimed was excessive and not supported by the evidence. The plaintiff argued that the amount was accurately calculated and reflected the true extent of the debt. The court was required to determine the precise amount owed by each defendant, the appropriate costs orders against each defendant, and the effect of the plaintiff’s withdrawal of her claim for damages on the costs orders.

The court first considered the amount owed by each defendant. It found that the plaintiff's calculations were accurate and that the amount claimed was justified. The court also examined the effect of the plaintiff's withdrawal of her claim for damages on the costs orders. It held that the withdrawal did not affect the defendants' liability for costs and that the costs orders should be made as if the claim for damages had not been withdrawn. The court then turned to the issue of interest, noting that the parties had apparently agreed that the loans were made on an interest-free basis. However, the court held that interest could still be awarded under the Civil Procedure Act 2005, as the agreement did not expressly exclude interest.

In conclusion, the court made orders that the natural person defendant was liable to pay the plaintiff $129,413.29, and the corporate defendant was liable to pay the plaintiff $159,109.55, plus interest at the prescribed rate from the date of the first judgment until the date of satisfaction. The court also made orders that the natural person defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the relief hearing, and that the corporate defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the relief hearing and the period after the first judgment. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to interest on the amount owed by the natural person defendant, as the agreement between the parties expressly excluded interest. However, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the amount owed by the corporate defendant, as the agreement did not expressly exclude interest.