Lambert v Lambert

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Gannon
• Judgment Date: 30 January 1987
• Neutral Citation: 1987 WJSC-HC 917
• Docket Number: 9458P/1981
• Court: High Court
• Date: 30 January 1987

1987 WJSC-HC 917

THE HIGH COURT

9458P/1981

LAMBERT v. LAMBERT

BETWEEN

EUGENE LAMBERT

PLAINTIFF

AND

JEAN MURRAY LAMBERT AND STEPHEN LAMBERT

DEFENDANTS

Citations:

O'SULLIVAN V DWYER (NO 2) 1973 IR 81

RSC O58 r21

ARNOTT V REDFERN 3 BING 353

CHATHAM & DOVER RAILWAY CO V SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY CO 1893 AC 429

K V K 1977 1 AER 576

NEWTON V GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY CO 16 M&W 139

JEFFORD V GEE 1970 2 QB 130 1970 1 AER 1202

WARNINCK (EWEN) BV V J TOWNEND & SONS (HULL) LTD (NO 2) 1982 3 AER 312

RSC O.58 r19

JUDGMENTS ACT 1838 S17

JUDGMENTS ACT 1838 S18

Synopsis:

ACTION

Termination

Judgment - Costs - Taxation - Construction of judgment - Dispute concerning liability of defendant for payment of interest on amount of plaintiff's taxed costs - Procedure for determination of issue of liability - ~See~ Practice, costs - (1981/9458 P - Gannon J. - 30/1/87) - [1987] ILRM 390

|Lambert v. Lambert|

ORDER

Construction

Procedure - Action terminated - Taxation of costs - Interest on amount of plaintiff's taxed costs - Dispute concerning liability of defendant to pay interest - Procedure for determining that issue - ~See~ Practice, costs - (1981/9458 P - Gannon J. - 30/1/87) - [1987] ILRM 390

|Lambert v. Lambert|

PRACTICE

Costs

Interest - Judgment - Construction - Procedure - High Court judgment dated 14/2/84 - Judgment entered in favour of plaintiff for #176,614 damages and costs - Order of High Court directed defendant to pay to plaintiff "interest on said judgment", or on such other sum found due to the plaintiff by the Supreme Court, from the date of the judgment at the rate of 11% per annum - Stay of execution was granted in the event of an appeal - The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court but, before the hearing of the appeal, the parties agreed that the damages should be reduced to #100,000, and that sum was paid to the plaintiff with interest in accordance with the order of the High Court - No agreement between the parties on the costs of the action - The Supreme Court, being informed of the agreement, ordered the substitution of the sum of #100,000 for the sum of #176,614 as the amount of damages in the order of the High Court, but otherwise affirmed that order without awarding any costs of the appeal - The costs of the hearing in the High Court were taxed on 21/3/86 and the defendant paid the plaintiff his taxed costs on 11/4/86, but the defendant refused to pay the plaintiff interest on the amount of his taxed costs - The plaintiff then applied to the High Court by notice of motion, bearing the title of the action, for an order directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff interest on the amount of his taxed costs at the rate of 11% from 14/2/84 until the date of payment - Held that the proper construction of the order of the High Court dated 14/2/84, as so amended, was that interest on the plaintiff's taxed costs was payable at the rate of 11% p.a. from the date of the order - Held that, as his action had terminated, the plaintiff should have issued a fresh summons seeking the determination of the dispute concerning the payment of interest on the amount of the plaintiff's taxed costs - (1981/9458 P - Gannon J. - 30/1/87) - [1987] ILRM 390

|Lambert v. Lambert|

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Gannon delivered the 30th day of January, 1987.

2 The above entitled action was commenced in 1981. The Plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants. The action was set down for trial before a judge and jury came for hearing before the late Doyle J. on the 7th of February, 1984. After a four day hearing the jury returned a verdict in favour of the plaintiff awarding him £176,614.00 damages. Judgment for this amount with costs was given by Doyle J. on the 10th of February, 1984. The curial part of his order as countersigned on the 14th of February, 1984 reads as follows:

"Upon these findings the Judge gave Judgment for the Plaintiff for £176,614.00 and costs.

And the Judge Ordered that execution on foot of the said Judgment he stayed for a period of 21 days from the date of countersigning of this Certificate and in the event of the Defendant serving Notice of Appeal within that period and duly entering same that execution be further stayed until the final determination of such appeal and that the Defendant do pay to the Plaintiff interest on said Judgment or such other sum as may be found due to the Plaintiff by the Supreme Court or by the Judge before whom the case is ultimately disposed of from the date of the Judgment herein at the rate of 11% per annum or such other rate as may be fixed by the Supreme Court or said Judge."

3 From that verdict judgment and order the defendant served notice of appeal within the 21 day period, and on foot of the stay of execution in Doyle J. 's order payment of the amounts of the jury's award and of the costs was deferred. Before the appeal was reached in the Supreme Court list a compromise amount for damages was agreed and paid on the 23rd of July 1984 with interest thereon at the rate prescribed in the High Court order. No agreement was reached on the costs not were they taxed until the 21st of March 1986. When the defendant's appeal came before the Supreme Court on the 19th of November 1985 that court was informed that a compromise had been reached. The order made by the Supreme Court on the 19th of November 1985, after reciting the order of Doyle J. made on the 10th of February 1984, "giving judgment for the Plaintiff for £176,614 and costs", is as follows:

"By Consent IT IS ORDERED that the said Order be varied by substituting the sum of £100,000 for the said sum of £176,614 as the Judgment for damages given in favour of the Plaintiff and do otherwise stand affirmed and the Court doth make no Order as to the costs of this Appeal or cross-appeal."

4 That order was final and conclusive between the parties in respect of these proceedings.

5 The defendants paid the amount of the taxed costs on the 11th of April, 1976 but refused to pay any interest on the amount of the costs. It must be assumed no question of the calculation of the amount of interest in relation to unpaid costs nor dispute as to liability for the payment thereof was raised before the Taxing Master. No report has been obtained from the Taxing Master in relation to the proceedings before him. The amount of the interest on the costs as taxed has not been paid because a dispute has arisen between the plaintiff and the defendants as to the period in relation to which the interest thereon (for which the defendant acknowledges liability) should be calculated. The plaintiff seeks payment of interest on the costs from the date of the High Court judgment as certified, namely the 14th of February 1984. The defendants refuse to pay interest on the costs in respect of any period earlier than the date on which the amount of the costs was certified by the Taxing Master, namely the 21st March 1986.

6 To resolve this dispute the parties to the now concluded action attended before this court upon an application by the plaintiff by motion entitled as in the concluded proceeding on notice to the defendants. The application which is grounded upon an affidavit of the plaintiff's solicitor is

"for the directions of the Court as to the amount and the means of calculation of interest payable by the Defendants to the Plaintiff in respect of the costs payable by the Defendants to the Plaintiff on foot of the judgment of this Honourable Court made herein on the 14th of February 1984 and for an order for the payment of the sum due for interest together with an Order for such further or other Order as to the Court may seem meet and just including an Order providing for the costs of and incidental to this application."

7 Other than the affidavit of the plaintiff's solicitor grounding the application and the documents referred to therein there was no evidence offered upon this application. In his affidavit the solicitor sets out the nature of the action initiated by plenary summons and the resultant court orders made at the conclusion of the trial by the jury and of the appeal to the Supreme Court as summarised above. Upon the hearing of the application as set out in the motion paper no submissions were offered in relation to the regularity or otherwise of the procedure. Subject to the reservations necessary because of the irregularity of the procedure adopted I propose expressing my opinion and conclusions on the arguments advanced before adverting to the manner in which the jurisdiction of this court has now been invoked.

8 On behalf of the plaintiff in the action, and the applicant for directions on this motion, Mr. Peart S.C. submitted that in his order giving judgment the learned trial judge directed that interest be paid on the amount of the judgment and determined the rate at which such interest is to be calculated. He pointed out that the direction for payment of interest was expressed in the order with reference to, and as a provision appropriate to, the necessary delay of payment consequent upon the stay of execution granted upon the defendants" application. He argued that upon the verdict of the jury the plaintiff was entitled to the judgment and the right to payment of the amount thereof as from the date of the verdict. The defendants did pay the amount of the agreed variation of the award of the jury on the 23rd of July 1984 and paid the interest up to that date prescribed by the High Court order on that sum on the 9th of October 1984. These payments were made before the matter came into the Supreme Court on appeal, Mr. Peart said. The amount of the costs payable was not agreed and they were not taxed until 1986. But the liability of the defendants for their payment with interest continued from the date of the High Court order, Mr. Peart submitted, and the amount by reference to...