Satinder Singh Garcha v Uthayasurian Sidambaram and Another

Quentin Loh JC:

[1] This further judgement follows upon my earlier judgement dated 23 October 2009 and deals with whether any interest should be awarded, and if so, for what period and at what rate. Interest was claimed by the Plaintiff but this issue was not addressed by either party in closing submissions. I therefore asked for written submissions on the same.

[2] The Plaintiff’s written submissions were filed on the 30 October 2009 and the 1 Defendant’s written submissions, although dated 6 November 2009, were delivered on 9 November 2009. As before, I thank counsel for their very helpful and concise submissions. Having considered the submissions and bearing in mind my previous findings and judgement, I make the following orders.

[3] I award interest at the rate of 5.33% p.a. on $300,000 which shall run from the date of the Writ to judgement. In doing so, I have taken into account my findings and the circumstances under which this claim came to be made and I have also taken the following into account:-

[4] On the $100,000, I have considered the interesting arguments raised as to whether I have jurisdiction to award any interest. I am of the view that I have the jurisdiction to do so on the authorities cited and reasons relied upon by the Plaintiff. It seems to me to be unarguable that where a claim is properly made, there was an existing and valid cause of action when the writ was issued and the sum claimed was paid before judgement was handed down, there is jurisdiction to award interest even though there is no judgement for that sum.

[5] I award interest at the rate of 3% p.a. on $100,000 which shall run from the 25 May 2006 to the 18 June 2009. In doing so, I have taken into account my findings and the circumstances under which this claim came to be made, especially at [79] and [80] of my judgment dated 23 October 2009, the factors, mutatis mutandis, set out at [3] above and in addition I have also taken into account the fact that the 1 Defendant only returned the $100,000 when the Court of 3 Judges raised the issue of its return.