Ikosidekas v Glenis

In the case of Ikosidekas v Glenis, the plaintiff sought $160,000 plus statutory interest from three defendants. After settling with two of the defendants, who paid the principal sum in full, the plaintiff proceeded to trial against the remaining defendant for interest and exemplary damages. The central legal issues involved determining whether the interest entitlement under sections 58 or 60 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 should be calculated before deducting the principal sum from the plaintiff's overall damages entitlement. The court had to consider whether the demand from a fictitious borrower constituted a demand for the purposes of section 58(1) of the Act, and whether the plaintiff's claim for costs against the settling defendants should be taken into account in assessing the plaintiff's damages entitlement.

The court concluded that the interest entitlement to the date of payment of the principal sum formed part of the damages entitlement, but the principal sum should be deducted from the total damages. The court found that the demand from the fictitious borrower was effectively a demand from the fraudster, thereby awarding interest under section 58(1) of the Act. The plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the amount of accrued interest at the date the principal sum was paid, and also for exemplary damages due to the order for compensatory damages. The appeal was allowed, reflecting that the court's reasoning aligned with the cited precedents.

Given the absence of evidence regarding the costs incurred in pursuing the defendants who settled, the full amount of the settlement sum was credited to the plaintiff's damages entitlement. The court applied established principles from Banque Keyser Ullman SA v Skandia (UK) Insurance Co Ltd (No 2) and Boncristiano v Lohmann to conclude that the plaintiff's concurrent claim for costs against the settling defendants did not affect the assessment of the plaintiff's damages entitlement. This decision reinforces the principle that where there is no evidence of the costs incurred, the settlement sum should be fully credited.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff was entitled to the accrued interest at the date the principal sum was paid and exemplary damages, with the settlement sum from the two defendants fully credited to the plaintiff's damages entitlement.