Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Trustee Company Ltd v Christchurch Pavilion Partnership (No 1)
Case
•
[2002] NZCA 127
•10 June 2002
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Trustee Company Ltd v Christchurch Pavilion Partnership (No 1) [2002] NZCA 127
[2002] NZCA 127
10 June 2002
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Trustee Company Ltd brought proceedings against the Christchurch Pavilion Partnership (No 1) in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of interest on costs in the context of an appeal. Deloittes, the successful appellant, sought interest on the costs they had paid to the Christchurch Pavilion Partnership, following a previous judgment. The Christchurch Pavilion Partnership argued that the term "judgment sum" did not include costs and that Deloittes should not be awarded interest.
The court had to decide whether the term "judgment sum" in Rule 22 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 1985 should be interpreted to include costs. Deloittes argued that the term "judgment debt" should encompass all principal payments made in compliance with the judgment, including costs. The Christchurch Pavilion Partnership countered that the term "judgment sum" did not include costs and that Deloittes should not receive interest on the costs they paid. The court considered the object of Rule 22, which is to financially restore the successful appellant to the position they would have occupied had the appellate outcome been adopted from the beginning. The court also considered Rule 19(5) which grants the court jurisdiction to make further orders as the case may require.
The court determined that it was appropriate to award interest to Deloittes on the costs they paid. The court rejected the argument that the term "judgment sum" did not include costs and found that costs required by the judgment should be included. The court awarded interest at a rate of seven per cent per annum, as presented by Deloittes in their affidavit evidence. The court also found that the Christchurch Pavilion Partnership was entitled to the interest earned on the funds held by the Registrar, as per the orders of Cartwright J of 6 August 1999. The court's decision resulted in an award of interest to Deloittes and the Christchurch Pavilion Partnership retaining the interest earned on the funds held by the Registrar.
The court had to decide whether the term "judgment sum" in Rule 22 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 1985 should be interpreted to include costs. Deloittes argued that the term "judgment debt" should encompass all principal payments made in compliance with the judgment, including costs. The Christchurch Pavilion Partnership countered that the term "judgment sum" did not include costs and that Deloittes should not receive interest on the costs they paid. The court considered the object of Rule 22, which is to financially restore the successful appellant to the position they would have occupied had the appellate outcome been adopted from the beginning. The court also considered Rule 19(5) which grants the court jurisdiction to make further orders as the case may require.
The court determined that it was appropriate to award interest to Deloittes on the costs they paid. The court rejected the argument that the term "judgment sum" did not include costs and found that costs required by the judgment should be included. The court awarded interest at a rate of seven per cent per annum, as presented by Deloittes in their affidavit evidence. The court also found that the Christchurch Pavilion Partnership was entitled to the interest earned on the funds held by the Registrar, as per the orders of Cartwright J of 6 August 1999. The court's decision resulted in an award of interest to Deloittes and the Christchurch Pavilion Partnership retaining the interest earned on the funds held by the Registrar.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Limitation Periods
-
Costs
-
Interest
-
Judicial Review
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0