Grima v RFI (Aust) Pty Ltd - [2015] NSWSC 332

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Grima v RFI (Aust) Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 332
Hearing dates: 23 March 2015
Date of orders: 02 April 2015
Decision date: 02 April 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1)Pursuant to s 101 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, order that the defendant pay the plaintiff interest in the sum of $254,623.
(2)Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the application for interest on a party/party basis.
(3)If the plaintiff wishes to apply for an order for costs on any other basis, then such application, together with all evidence in support and submissions in support, ought be filed within 7 days of delivery of this judgment.
(4)In the event that the plaintiff does make such application, the defendant is to file and serve all evidence upon which it wishes to rely to resist such an order, together with all submissions in support of its resistance to such order, within 7 days after the receipt of the plaintiff’s application and evidence in support.
(5)Unless the Court otherwise orders, the plaintiff’s application will be dealt with on the papers.

Catchwords: INTEREST – post-judgment interest – s 101 Civil Procedure Act 2005 – judgment for plaintiff – plaintiff rejected tender of payment from defendant of the judgment sum awarded– judgment sum increased by Court of Appeal – whether interest should be paid for period between rejected tender of payment and date monies paid to plaintiff - whether accord and satisfaction – whether interest should be awarded at prescribed or a lesser rate
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Supreme Court Act 1970
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Workers Compensation Act 1987
Cases Cited: Abdulle v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd [2010] NSWCA 60
Grima v RFI (Aust) Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 14
Haines v Bendall [1991] HCA 15; (1991) 172 CLR 60
Hungerfords v Walker [1989] HCA 8; (1989) 171 CLR 125
Maestrale v Aspite (No.2) [2014] NSWCA 302 at [15].
McDermott v Black [1940] HCA 4; (1940) 63 CLR 161
Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (No.2) [2014] NSWCA 425
Pheeney v Doolan (No 2) (1977) 1 NSWLR 601
Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd v Nathan’s Merchandise (Victoria) Pty Ltd [1957] HCA 10; (1957) 98 CLR 93
Texts Cited: Not Applicable
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Carmel Grima (P)
RFI (Australia) Pty Ltd (D)
Representation:
Counsel:
E G Romaniuk SC / S Maybury (P)
B Hedges (D)
Solicitors:
Edwards Michael Powell Lawyers (P)
Walker Hedges & Co (D)

File Number(s): 2011/201053
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

___________________________________________________________________

Judgment

On 8 March 2010, Mr Carmel Grima was badly injured whilst working for Allied Overnight Express Pty Ltd (“Allied”) as a storeman.
He was engaged upon unloading a truck loaded with rolls of carpet, which had originally been loaded in Melbourne by RFI (Aust) Pty Ltd t/as Regenfoam (“RFI”). Mr Grima claimed that RFI had been negligent in, and about, the way in which…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Grima v RFI (Aust) Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Grima v RFI (Aust) Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 332
Case: [2015] NSWSC 332
Decision Date: 02 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Grima v RFI (Aust) Pty Ltd, the court was asked to determine the appropriate period for which post-judgment interest should be awarded in the context of a judgment debt. The plaintiff, Grima, had successfully sued the defendant, RFI (Aust) Pty Ltd, and was awarded a sum of money. After the judgment was entered, RFI offered to pay the judgment sum, which Grima refused. Subsequently, the judgment sum was increased on appeal, and RFI paid the increased amount to Grima. Grima sought post-judgment interest from the date of the original judgment to the date of payment, while RFI argued for interest only from the date of payment to the date of satisfaction, or alternatively, at a lesser rate.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the rejection of the tender of payment by the plaintiff constituted an accord and satisfaction, thereby affecting the accrual of interest, and if not, whether the interest should be calculated from the date of the original judgment or from the date of payment of the increased sum. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the interest should be awarded at the prescribed rate or at a lesser rate as argued by the defendant.

The court found that the rejection of the tender of payment did not amount to an accord and satisfaction, as there was no fresh agreement between the parties that would discharge the original debt. The court held that post-judgment interest should accrue from the date of the original judgment until the date of payment of the increased sum. The court further ruled that the interest should be calculated at the prescribed rate, rejecting the defendant's argument for a lesser rate. The court concluded that the interest should run from the date of the original judgment to the date of payment of the increased sum at the prescribed rate.

As a result, the court ordered that post-judgment interest be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff from the date of the original judgment to the date of payment of the increased sum at the prescribed rate, as provided by the Civil Procedure Act 2005.

Orders