82,890
edits
Fearns v Anglo-Dutch Paint and Chemical Company Ltd: Difference between revisions
Fearns v Anglo-Dutch Paint and Chemical Company Ltd (view source)
Revision as of 19:07, 19 December 2020
, 19 December 2020Amwelladmin moved page Fearns v Anglo-Dutch Paint and Chemical Company Limited - Case Note to Fearns v Anglo-Dutch Paint and Chemical Company Ltd
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m (Amwelladmin moved page Fearns v Anglo-Dutch Paint and Chemical Company Limited - Case Note to Fearns v Anglo-Dutch Paint and Chemical Company Ltd) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{cn}}{{cite|Fearns|Anglo-Dutch Paint and Chemical Company Limited|2007|EWHC|955(Ch)}} | ||
Fearns and Anglo-Dutch sued each other. In a very millennial outcome, they both won. Fearns was awarded £438,569 for breach of trademark. Anglo Dutch was awarded €594,696 for goods sold to Fearns which he didn't pay for. | |||
Keen observers will note these amounts are in different currencies; one in the heroic currency of the {{tag|United Kingdom}}, one in that ghastly monopoly money of those [[European Union|garlic-munching continentals]].<ref>We can say things like this now we have a [[Red white and blue Brexit]], right?</ref> | Keen observers will note these amounts are in different currencies; one in the heroic currency of the {{tag|United Kingdom}}, one in that ghastly monopoly money of those [[European Union|garlic-munching continentals]].<ref>We can say things like this now we have a [[Red white and blue Brexit]], right?</ref> | ||
What to do? | What to do? The court concluded the law was as follows: | ||
:(1) Where one party has a claim against another party who has a cross-claim, the two claims cannot be netted off so as to extinguish each liability to the extent of the other except by agreement or a judgment of the court and once both liabilities have been established by agreement or judgment. | |||
:(2) Where, however, the two claims are for sums of money which are due and certain in amount, each party may raise a defence to the extent of its own claim in proceedings brought by the other ([[legal set-off]]). | |||
:(3) In addition, where the two claims are (i) made [[reasonably]] and [[in good faith]] and (ii) so closely connected that it would be manifestly unjust to allow one party to enforce payment without taking into account the cross-claim, neither party may exercise any rights contingent on the validity of its claim except in so far as it exceeds the other party's claim ([[equitable set-off]]). | |||
:(4) Under CPR r.40.13 and the court's inherent jurisdiction, the court has a discretion to order any judgment sum to be set off (in the sense of [[Settlement netting|netted off]]) against any other such sum. The date at which such a set-off should be effected is the date on which the existence and amount of the two liabilities is or was established. | |||
:(5) The approach which the court should adopt when ordering such a set-off between amounts payable in different currencies is: (i) to assess and add to each principal amount any interest accruing up to the date of the set-off; (ii) to convert the smaller amount into the currency of the larger amount at the exchange rate prevailing at that date; and (iii) to order payment of the balance. | |||
{{ | {{sa}} | ||
*[http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2010/2366.html Judgment transcript from Fearns v Anglo-Dutch] | *[http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2010/2366.html Judgment transcript from Fearns v Anglo-Dutch] | ||
*[[Set-off]] | *[[Set-off]] | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||