The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Interlink Ireland Limited, trading as D.P.D., and allowed a cross-appeal by Cyril Reaney, Ita O’Regan and Travalon Limited over a dispute arising from the termination of a courier franchise. It varied the High Court order to provide for judgment of €413,525, including statutory interest.
The dispute concerned a franchise agreement for depot 28. The High Court had awarded the plaintiffs €255,307 for the value of the terminated franchise, €31,900 for under-weighed Parceline consignments and €8,680 for sums wrongly deducted from a Pulsar account. A separate claim concerning a 1L4 account was dismissed. The High Court’s award totalled €356,200, including VAT on the franchise and Parceline awards.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had erred by refusing interest because the franchise agreement did not provide for it. Under section 22 of the Courts Act 1981, the court had discretion to award interest on sums ordered to be paid. The judgment said that interest can compensate a recipient for being deprived of money due, while the timing and conduct of the proceedings are relevant to deciding what period is just.
The court awarded interest at 8% from 8 July 2010, when the later proceedings began, on the VAT-exclusive amounts awarded for the franchise and the Parceline and Pulsar claims. It calculated interest to 30 November 2012 at €57,325, bringing the judgment total to €413,525. The court treated the Parceline and Pulsar amounts as sums that should have been paid or retained during the franchise, but said the plaintiffs did not pursue those claims until the 2010 proceedings.
The court also considered DPD’s lodgements into court, which totalled €362,243.23. It held that the “amount awarded” for the purpose of Order 22, rule 6 includes the full judgment, including statutory interest. Because the judgment exceeded the lodgement, that rule did not apply.
As a result, the Court of Appeal did not decide whether the lodgement notices complied with the rule requiring amounts to be specified for each cause of action. It noted uncertainty in Order 22 and said a review by the Superior Courts Rules Committee may be desirable. The court left undisturbed the High Court’s decision to make no order as to costs of the interlocutory hearing.