Geldof Metaalconstructie v Carves: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A good [http://www.olswang.com/articles/2010/09/equitable-set-off-the-court-of-appeal-restates-the-legal-test-geldof-metaalconstructie-nv-v-simon-carves-ltd-2010-ewca-civ-667/ case note from Olswang]. | {{cn}}A good [http://www.olswang.com/articles/2010/09/equitable-set-off-the-court-of-appeal-restates-the-legal-test-geldof-metaalconstructie-nv-v-simon-carves-ltd-2010-ewca-civ-667/ case note from Olswang]. | ||
The Court of Appeal in Geldof Metaalconstructie NV v Simon Carves Ltd recently took the opportunity to clarify the test on equitable {{tag|set-off}}, which has been the subject of some uncertainty, particularly in relation to cross-claims brought under separate contracts. | The Court of Appeal in Geldof Metaalconstructie NV v Simon Carves Ltd recently took the opportunity to clarify the test on equitable {{tag|set-off}}, which has been the subject of some uncertainty, particularly in relation to cross-claims brought under separate contracts. | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Rix LJ acknowledged that the authorities expressed the formal element of the test in different ways, of which the "inseparable connection" test was only one formulation, and observed that that formulation was not especially helpful in cases involving separate contracts. | Rix LJ acknowledged that the authorities expressed the formal element of the test in different ways, of which the "inseparable connection" test was only one formulation, and observed that that formulation was not especially helpful in cases involving separate contracts. | ||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Set-off]] | *[[Set-off]] | ||
*[[Equitable set-off]] | *[[Equitable set-off]] | ||