Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2017] All ER (D) 11 (Jan)
Neutral Citation: [2016] EWHC 3233 (TCC)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court

Coulson J

Representation Nicholas Davidson QC and Hefin Rees QC (instructed by ELS Legal LLP) for the claimants.
  Justin Fenwick QC, George Spalton and Peter Morcos (instructed by Kennedys Law LLP) for the defendant.
Judgment Dates: 21 December 2016


Judgment - Award - Foreign currency - Appropriate mechanics of payment of judgment sum - Costs - Substantial judgment sum being awarded to claimants following success on part of claim - Judgment sum being expressed in United States dollars and proposal being made for sum to be paid into escrow account to protect investors and in light of pending foreign insolvency proceedings - Whether relevant loss being suffered in sterling such that judgment sum should be expressed in sterling - Whether judgment sum should be paid into court due to parties failing to agree in respect of escrow account - Whether claimants' costs to be reduced to reflect overall result - Whether interest payable - Whether payment to be made on account.

The Case

Judgment Award. The Technology and Construction Court revisited its earlier proposal, in the main judgment, that a judgment sum awarded to Harlequin against Wilkins Kennedy should be temporarily placed in an escrow account. That proposal had been made in the light of the risk to investors and the fact that insolvency proceedings were ongoing in respect of the first claimant company in St. Vincent and the Grenadines. The court held that, given the nature of the relationship between the parties' solicitors, it would not be appropriate to order any sort of escrow account. Instead, the money was ordered to be paid into court. It was further held that, given that the currency in which the relevant loss had been felt was sterling, the sum subject to the award in the main judgment would be expressed in sterling, namely 7,443,821.12, plus interest. Costs were awarded to the first claimant, but reduced by 40% to reflect the fact that the first claimant had been successful only on part of one of three issues in the main proceedings.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.