Rainero v Cayman Rent-A-Villas

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Smellie, J.)
• Judgment Date: 20 April 1994
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Date: 20 April 1994

Grand Court

(Smellie, J.)

RAINERO

and

CUMBER (trading as

CAYMAN RENT-A-VILLAS) and STEWART

N.R.L. Clifford for the defendant;

G. Giglioli for the third party.

Case cited:

(1) London, Chatham & Dover Ry Co. v. South Eastern Ry. Co., [1893] A.C. 429, observations of Lord Herschell, L.C. applied.

Legislation construed:

Judicature Law (Revised) (Law 11 of 1975, revised 1976), s.62(2): The relevant parts of this sub-section are set out at page 129, lines 41–43.

s.62(3): The relevant parts of this sub-section are set out at page 128, line 34.

Rules of the Supreme Court, O.18, r.8(4):

‘A party must plead specifically any claim for interest. . . .’

Civil Procedure-judgments and orders-interest on judgment debt-awards of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest in same matter not precluded by Judicature Law (Revised), s.62(3)-awards under s.62(1) and (2) not to run coincidentally-interest awarded for depriving successful party of money owed, not as damages

Civil Procedure-judgments and orders-interest on judgment debt-interest to be specifically claimed and particularized by Rules of Supreme Court, O.18, r.8(4)-failure to particularize not fatal if other party not prejudiced

The defendant sought an order for pre-judgment interest on a money judgment given in her favour against the third party.

The plaintiff had obtained judgment against the defendant on her promise to pay him money owed by the third party, her principal. She then successfully brought proceedings for indemnification by the third party and he counterclaimed (successfully in part) for loss caused to him by the defendant”s breach of her duty of care as an agent. The proceedings are reported at 1994–95 CILR 64. The judgment in favour of the defendant included post-judgment interest and costs and she now claimed pre-judgment interest (though she had not pleaded it) from the date on which the third party was made aware that he should reimburse the defendant. Her claim was adjourned to allow time for submissions to be made. The third party”s judgment for damages on his counterclaim remained unpaid.

The defendant submitted that (a) she was entitled to pre-judgment interest under the Judicature Law (Revised), s.62(2) because (i) the third party had had no serious defence to the action for indemnity since he had had independent confirmation that the debt was owed to the plaintiff for some two years before she obtained judgment against him; and (ii) he had been guilty of delaying tactics in order to postpone and avoid judgment and payment; (b) the Judicature Law (Revised), s.62(3) did not preclude awards of both post-judgment and pre-judgment interest in the same matter but was designed to prevent them running coincidentally; and (c) the requirement of the English Rules of the Supreme Court, O.18, r.8 that items claimed should be particularized in the statement of claim was designed to ensure that the opposing party was not prejudiced at the trial by the absence of particulars in the statement of claim and in the present case the third party had not been prejudiced since the defendant had made

a general claim for interest and the matter of pre-judgment interest had been adjourned to allow the third party time to prepare his submissions.

The third party submitted in reply that (a) he was not guilty of using delaying tactics, since any delay was occasioned by the shortage of court time, the multiplicity of claims made by the defendant and her failure to consolidate them; (b) the Judicature Law (Revised), s.62(3) provided that sub-s. (1), dealing with post-judgment interest, and sub-s. (2), dealing with pre-judgment interest, were mutually exclusive and consequently precluded the award of both types of interest in the same action; (c) pre-judgment interest had not been pleaded and particularized in the statement of claim, as required by the English Rules of the Supreme...