CPR Pt 36—Enhanced Interest Should Not Function as Punitive Damages for Malicious Defence

Vaclav Janecek

No p2ewt, LawRxiv from Center for Open Science

Abstract: This note critically comments on the Court of Appeal’s decision in OMV Petrom SA v Glencore International AG. By introducing a penal element to the enhanced interest rate pursuant to CPR Pt 36, the Court of Appeal has extended the justificatory reasons for those awards beyond compensation. This note argues that Petrom-like awards should not be ordered in the future and that the Civil Procedure Rule Committee should amend the CPR accordingly. One issue is that the Petrom award was based on analogical application of the CPR, which implies that the Court of Appeal’s reasoning was in fact not governed by CPR Pt 36. Another issue is that the existing common law principles—as the next best source of law for the Court of Appeal’s decision—do not support the ruling either. This is because, first, the Petrom award was made in respect of the defendant’s malicious defence even though malicious defence does not constitute a common law tort. Secondly, the penal element in Petrom functioned as punitive damages even though the existing common law principles regarding punitive damages prevent courts from making such awards in similar cases.

Date: 2019-04-11
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-law
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://osf.io/download/5caf25ddf2be3c0017ff805b/

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:osf:lawarx:p2ewt

DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/p2ewt

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in LawRxiv from Center for Open Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by OSF ().