Credit Agricole Indosuez v Banque Nationale de Paris: Restitution with Interest on Reversed Judgment

In Credit Agricole Indosuez v Banque Nationale de Paris, the Court of Appeal of Singapore, on April 6, 2001, addressed the issue of whether a judgment sum paid pursuant to a High Court judgment, which was later reversed on appeal, should be repaid with interest. The court allowed the appeal by Credit Agricole Indosuez and ordered Banque Nationale de Paris to refund the judgment sum of US$1,378,360.02, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of receipt of the judgment sum to the date of the Court of Appeal's judgment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Orders accordingly.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Court of Appeal reversed a High Court decision and addressed whether repayment of a judgment sum should include interest. The court ordered restitution with interest.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Banque Nationale de ParisRespondentCorporationOrders to refund judgment sum with interestLost
Credit Agricole IndosuezAppellantCorporationAppeal AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of AppealYes
L P TheanJustice of AppealNo
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Gan Kam YuinBih Li & Lee
Choi Yok HungBih Li & Lee
Rowena Chew KiatBih Li & Lee
Toh Kian SingRajah & Tann
Steven ChongRajah & Tann
David Tan Yew BengRajah & Tann

4. Facts

  1. The High Court granted judgment to BNP on a letter of credit issued by CAI.
  2. CAI paid US$1,378,360.02 to BNP pursuant to the High Court judgment.
  3. The Court of Appeal reversed the High Court's decision, holding that BNP was not entitled to any payment under the letter of credit.
  4. CAI requested a refund of the judgment sum plus interest.
  5. BNP refused to pay interest on the sum from the date of payment to the date of the Court of Appeal's judgment.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Credit Agricole Indosuez v Banque Nationale de Paris, CA 52/2000, [2001] SGCA 20

6. Timeline

DateEvent
CAI paid US$1,378,360.02 to BNP pursuant to the High Court judgment.
Court of Appeal delivered judgment allowing CAI's appeal and reversing the High Court's decision.
CAI's solicitors requested a refund of US$1,378,360.02 plus interest from BNP's solicitors.
BNP's solicitors refused to pay interest on the sum from 10 April 2000 to the date of the Court of Appeal's judgment.
Court of Appeal ruled on the repayment of the judgment sum with interest.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Restitution with Interest
    • Outcome: The court ordered that the respondent must restore all benefits gained through the judgment which has been reversed, including interest.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • Rodger v The Comptoir D`Escompte de Paris
      • Singapore Airlines Ltd v Fujitsu Microelectronics (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (No 2) 1 SLR 532
      • Meerkin v Rossett Pty Ltd

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Refund of judgment sum
  2. Interest on judgment sum

9. Cause of Actions

  • Restitution

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Banking Law

11. Industries

  • Banking

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Rodger v The Comptoir D`Escompte de ParisPrivy CouncilYesRodger v The Comptoir D`Escompte de ParisN/ACited as the locus classicus on the issue of restitution with interest following the reversal of a judgment.
Singapore Airlines Ltd v Fujitsu Microelectronics (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (No 2)Court of AppealYesSingapore Airlines Ltd v Fujitsu Microelectronics (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (No 2) 1 SLR 532SingaporeCited for the principle that justice demands a focus on restitution rather than compensation in cases of reversed judgments.
Meerkin v Rossett Pty LtdCourt of Appeal of the State of VictoriaYesMeerkin v Rossett Pty LtdAustraliaCited for the principle that the error was made by the court below, not by the respondent, and there is no right to compensation as against the respondent, only to restitution.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Restitution
  • Unjust enrichment
  • Reversed judgment
  • Interest
  • Letter of credit

15.2 Keywords

  • Restitution
  • Interest
  • Reversed Judgment
  • Letter of Credit
  • Singapore
  • Court of Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Letter of Credit Law90
Civil Procedure80
Judgments and Orders70
Unjust Enrichment60
Commercial Law50
Banking and Finance40
Remedies40
Arbitration30
Curial Law20
Estoppel20

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Restitution
  • Banking
  • Appeals