AS LATVIJAS KRAJBANKA V ANTONOV

[2016] EWHC 1679 (Comm), Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, Mr Justice Leggatt, 8 July 2016

Conflicts of law - Interest - Whether a matter of substance or procedure - Discretion as to interest - Currency impact on commercial rates of interest - Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 - Rome II - Senior Courts Act 1981, section 35A - Administration of Justice Act 1970, section 44A

The judge had concluded that the defendant had acted dishonestly and in breach of duties owed to the claimant bank under Latvian law, so that the bank was entitled to recover damages. This was the decisions on the award of pre-and post-judgment interest on those sums. The question of whether interest was to be regarded as a matter of substance or procedure fell to be resolved differently for the various claims. Some claims fell under the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 pointing to Latvian law as the place where the tort occurred, except in matters of procedure (section 14(3)(b)). Some fell under Rome II which pointed to Latvia for tort/delict as the place where the damage occurred, except as to evidence and procedure per article 1(3) - where "evidence and procedure" was a concept independent of national law. Some, finally, by virtue of being non-contractual obligations arising out of the law of companies, fell outside Rome II and therefore under the common law choice of law rules which pointed to Latvia as the place of incorporation of the bank. Evidence of Latvian law showed that Latvian courts awarded interest from the judgment date at a rate of 6 per cent, but not before judgment was given.