0370 270 6000

Petrotrade Inc v Texaco Ltd, Court of Appeal

16 June 2000
The issues

Whether An Award Of Enhanced Interest And Costs On An Indemnity Basis Should Apply Where Summary Judgment Was Given.

The facts

The Claimant cross appealed (in a case where the Defendant appealed against the entry of summary judgment – that appeal was dismissed) against the Judge’s refusal to award enhanced interest and costs on an indemnity basis after it had made a Part 36 Offer to settle for a sum which was greater than the amount of the judgment in its favour. The applicability of Rule 36.21 was not argued before the Judge at first instance.

The decision

(Lord Woolf) Rule 36.21 provided for costs sanctions where “at trial” a Defendant was held liable for more than the proposals contained in the Part 36 Offer. Therefore the rule did not apply where summary judgment was given under Part 24.

The Court has however always had the power which is discretionary towards costs on an indemnity basis and to award interest at such rate as is considered just. In circumstances such as these, it was possible for the Court when exercising underneath its general jurisdiction as to interest, to give a higher rate of interest than the going rate. This should be borne in mind otherwise Claimants will be deterred from seeking summary judgment which would be contrary to the ethos and policy of the Civil Procedure Rules. His Lordship was confident that if that had already occurred on occasions the Court would use its “ample powers to ensure that a Claimant did not benefit by any such tactic”.

In this particular case His Lordship would have considered awarding interest 4% above base rate for 12 months and making an order for indemnity costs from the time of the Part 36 Offer.

The Judge however had not heard this argument and it will be wrong to interfere with his discretion under those circumstances.

Cross Appeal dismissed.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up