Ronstan International Pty Ltd v Thomson - [2002] VSCA 107

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 5230 of 1997

RONSTAN INTERNATIONAL PTY. LTD.

ACN 068 111 053

Appellant

PETER THOMSON

Respondent

PETER THOMSON

Cross-Appellant

RONSTAN INTERNATIONAL PTY. LTD.

ACN 068 111 053

Cross-Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN, CHERNOV and EAMES, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	29-30 April 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 July 2002
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSCA 107	1^ST Revision - 1 August 2002

---

Judgment – Order for repayment of money paid pursuant to a judgment varied on appeal – Interest on sum overpaid – Rate of interest.

Costs – Partial success of appeal – Order for portion of costs.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant and Cross-Respondent	Mr A. Archibald, Q.C. with Mr D. Batt and Mrs S. Marks	Deacons Lawyers
For the Respondent and Cross-Appellant	Mr C. Golvan and Mr A. Klotz	PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal

BUCHANAN, J.A.:
CHERNOV, J.A.:
EAMES, J.A.:

On 31 May 2002 this appeal was allowed for the limited purpose of varying the amount of the judgment by altering the sum to be set off, with the consequent reduction of the amount of interest on the judgment. As the appellant at least was not ready to argue the question of costs, we directed the parties to file written submissions. We have now received written submissions as to consequential orders sought by the appellant and as to costs.

On 8 August 2000 the appellant satisfied the judgment awarded by the trial judge by payment of the sum of $239,434.69 to the respondent. The appellant also paid $3,227.60 to the respondent for interest in respect of the period between the date of judgment and the date of payment. The judgment substituted by this Court was in the sum of $175,058.86.

Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to be repaid the sum of $64,375.83. The appellant seeks an order for repayment of that sum together with, the proportion of the additional interest in respect of the period after the judgment that was paid on the overpaid portion of the original judgment amount, which produces an amount of $65,221.44, and interest on those sums from 8 August 2000 until the date of repayment. The rate proposed by the appellant is 7% per annum.

It is well settled that a party who has satisfied a judgment for the payment of money is entitled by way of restitution on the reversal or variation of the judgment to repayment of the money paid, with interest.[1] The respondent has not advanced any argument against an order for repayment of the sum overpaid and interest thereon, but contends that the rate of interest should be 3.5% per annum. In support of the rate of 7% the appellant has referred to the fact that on 3 August 2000 the respondent deposed that he would apply the amount of the judgment in reduction of his debt to two banks. In support of the rate of 3.5% the respondent cites the rates declared by the Senior Master on Common…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ronstan International Pty Ltd v Thomson and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] VSCA 107
Decision Date: 25 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ronstan International Pty Ltd v Thomson, the dispute involved a repayment of money previously awarded in a judgment that was subsequently varied on appeal. The original judgment had been in favour of Ronstan International Pty Ltd, who were awarded damages against Thomson. Following an appeal, the judgment was varied, resulting in an overpayment to Ronstan International. The issue of interest on the overpaid sum and the appropriate rate of interest was central to the case. Additionally, the matter of costs associated with the partial success of the appeal was considered. The court had to determine whether interest should be applied to the overpaid sum and, if so, at what rate. Furthermore, the court needed to decide on the costs associated with the partial success of the appeal, including whether the appellant was entitled to a portion of the costs incurred by the respondent.

The court began by examining the principles governing the repayment of money overpaid pursuant to a judgment that has been varied on appeal. It noted that where a party is ordered to repay an overpaid sum, interest is typically payable on that sum from the date of the original judgment until the date of repayment. The court then considered the appropriate rate of interest to be applied, taking into account legislative provisions and relevant precedents. Regarding costs, the court addressed the principle of costs following a partial success on appeal, recognising that the appellant might be entitled to a portion of the costs incurred by the respondent, but not necessarily a proportional share. The court carefully balanced the costs associated with the appeal against the overall outcome for both parties.

In its reasoning, the court found that interest should indeed be payable on the overpaid sum from the date of the original judgment until the date of repayment, in accordance with established legal principles. It determined the applicable rate of interest by reference to relevant statutory provisions and case law, ensuring that the rate reflected the economic circumstances at the time. Concerning costs, the court held that while the appellant was successful on the issue of interest, it was not entirely successful on the appeal. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to a portion of the costs, reflecting the partial success of the appeal, but not the full costs incurred by the respondent.

The court ordered that interest be payable on the overpaid sum at a rate determined by the court, from the date of the original judgment until the date of repayment. Additionally, the court made an order for the appellant to pay a portion of the respondent's costs, reflecting the partial success of the appeal. This decision provided clarity on the principles governing interest on overpaid sums and the allocation of costs in cases of partial success on appeal.

Orders