0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

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

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.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


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