New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Ostrovsky v Burton [2009] NSWSC 1035 HEARING DATE(S) : 7 July 2009 JUDGMENT DATE : 1 October 2009 JURISDICTION : Equity JUDGMENT OF : Slattery J at 1 DECISION : Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $498,656.74. CATCHWORDS : INTEREST - where equitable relief or fiduciary relationship - calculation of interest up to judgment LEGISLATION CITED : Civil Procedure Act 2005 CATEGORY : Consequential orders CASES CITED : Hexiva v Lederer (No 2) [2007] NSWSC 49 Plaintiff: Alex Ostrovsky PARTIES : First Defendant: Lindsay Keith Burton Second Defendant: Construction Industry Advisory Services Pty Ltd FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 4359/98 COUNSEL : Plaintiff: Ms N Obrart Defendants: No appearance SOLICITORS : Plaintiff: Kent Attorneys Defendants: No appearance IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION DUTY LIST SLATTERY J THURSDAY 1 OCTOBER 2009 4359/98 ALEX OSTROVSKY v LINDSAY KEITH BURTON & CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ADVISORY SERVICES PTY LTD JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: I gave judgment in these proceedings on 7 July 2009. At that time two matters were left outstanding. The first was that the Court sought information as to whether Mr Williams, the receiver had been paid. On that question Ms Obrart, counsel for the plaintiff has since informed the Court that Mr Williams has been paid by the plaintiff. 2 The second question was for the Court to be provided with the calculation of interest to compute the final sum for the entry of judgment. In my judgment of 7 July 2009 at [44] I found that the plaintiff was entitled to interest on half the value of the subject property, namely $250,000, from 28 July 1999 up to the date of judgment. The prescribed rates of interest under Schedule 5 of the UCPR will ordinarily be allowed under s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 without the necessity for calling specific evidence: Hexiva v Lederer (No 2) [2007] NSWSC 49. Ms Obrart has provided to the Court a letter dated 30 September 2009 from Rosenfeld Kant & Co Chartered Accountants, which shows that interest from that date up to today based on Schedule 5 rates of interest is $242,868.74. It is not strictly necessary for the letter from Rosenfeld Kant & Co to be tendered as the calculations within it are mathematical logic, not fact. However, the calculation is set out in the next paragraph. 3 The prescribed rate of interest up to judgment under Schedule 5 UCPR between 28 July 1999 and 6 March 2009 varied between 9% and 11%. Between 6 March 2009 and 30 September 2009 the rate was 9%. The Rosenfeld Kant & Co interest calculation on $250,000 for the period 28 July 1999 to 30 September 2009 is set out in their table which follows: Date Date No of Of Principal Rate Interest Daily From To Days Rate 28-Jul-99 29-Feb-09 217 366 $ 250,000.00 9.50% $14,081.28 $64.89 1-Mar-00 31-Aug-00 184 365 $ 250,000.00 10.00% $12,568.30 $68.31 1-Sep-00 31-Aug-01 365 365 $ 250,000.00 11.00% $27,500.00 $75.34 1-Sep-01 28-Feb-02 181 365 $ 250,000.00 10.00% $12,397.26 $68.49 1-Mar-02 31-Dec-06 1767 365 $ 250,000.00 9.00% $108,924.65 $61.64 1-Jan-07 5-Mar-09 795 365 $ 250,000.00 10.00% $54,452.05 $68.49 6-Mar-09 9-Jul-09 126 365 $ 250,000.00 9.00% $7,767.12 $61.64 10-Jul-09 1-Oct-09 84 365 $ 250,000.00 9.00% $5,178.08 $61.64 3719 $242,868.74 4 In paragraph [57] of the principal judgment I record that I was prepared to enter judgment for the $250,000 half share in the subject property, the interest on that sum from 28 July 1999 up to the date of judgment, plus the receiver's fees of $5,788. At the time of the principal judgment it was uncertain whether some of the interest claimed would be waived. The plaintiff does claim full interest up to judgment. The final calculation of the judgment sum therefore is: (i) Half Share of Subject Property $250,000.00 (ii) Interest from 28 July 1999 to 30 September 2009 $242,868.74 (iii) Mr Williams' fees as receiver $5,788.00 $498,656.74 5 Accordingly there will be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $498,656.74. 6 I have already made orders in the principal judgment at [56] that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of these proceedings on an indemnity basis from 27 August 2007. That costs order extends to costs incurred up to today. ******** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.