Case: Hungerfords v Walker [1989] HCA 8 ; (1988-1989) 171 CLR 125 
Outcome: applied
The applicants seek compound interest. They submit that the decision of the High Court in Hungerfords v Walker [1989] HCA 8 ; (1988-1989) 171 CLR 125 is authority for the proposition that compound interest may be awarded by way of damages. The decision is certainly authority for that proposition. Such an award is distinct from an award of interest pursuant to the statutory power conferred upon this Court by s 51A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the "Federal Court Act"). It is clear from the reasons of Mason CJ and Wilson J at 149 (Brennan and Deane JJ concurring) that an award of compound interest must be for 'a foreseeable loss, necessarily within the contemplation of the parties, which is directly related to the defendant's breach of contract or tort' . In that case, the plaintiff conducted a business and had borrowed substantial amounts for that purpose. The award was designed to compensate the plaintiff for specifically identifiable losses. Compound interest was not allowed by way of damages on amounts which would have been spent for private purposes. 571. As far as I am aware, none of the applicants has asserted a case of the kind considered in Hungerfords . Given the relatively small amounts of most investments and the personal circumstances of many of the applicants, it is likely that many would have expended any interest on living expenses and other private outgoings. The loss of interest may have caused them a degree of hardship or discomfort, but they cannot be compensated for that in dollar terms. It is not appropriate, in this case, to award compound interest as damages. 572. As to the rate at which the awards should bear interest pursuant to s 51A, ex 74 contains information as to bank deposit rates for the period from July 1999 until September 2004. The table shows monthly fluctuations in interest rates for various types of deposit and for various periods. Given that the applicants have been out of their funds since 23 July 2000 it seems appropriate to adopt the rate payable for the longest available term which is five years. The average rate over the period from 23 July 2000 until September 2004 is 4.9 per cent. The awards will bear interest at that rate from 23 July 2000 until the date of judgment. To this sum will be added, in the case of each applicant, interest at the same rate on the amount of the first distribution for the period of 2.75 years and on the amount of the second distribution for 3.8 years. There may have to be further adjustments in the cases of the thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth applicants. I will hear further submissions after publication of these reasons. 573. It might be thought that this approach involves the award of interest upon interest, which approach is not permitted by s 51A. I refer to my inclusion of an amount for interest in calculating the award of damages and then allowing interest on the amount of the award. However I do not understand s 51A to regulate the calculation of damages. It rather addresses the award of interest after such calculation. It does not authorize compound interest on an award.