Sempra v IRC (Charles Mitchell, 12 Apr 2005)

Of course it's just a tree. What does it look like ?

RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

Sender:	Charles Mitchell
Date:	Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:13:27 +0100
Re:	Sempra v IRC

The CA has upheld Park J's award of compound interest to the claimants in Sempra, Chadwick LJ noting at [53] that 'the English domestic rules as to interest fail to provide the remedy which Community law requires'.

At [43] he reviews the minority speeches in Westdeutsche and remarks that it is 'generally accepted that, in commercial cases at least, an award based on compound, rather than simple, interest is more likely to reflect economic reality and to provide full, rather than partial, recompense for the loss of the use of money.'

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "

»
»
»
»
»

For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.