82,903
edits
Geldof Metaalconstructie v Carves: Difference between revisions
Geldof Metaalconstructie v Carves (view source)
Revision as of 17:35, 5 February 2015
, 5 February 2015no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "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/...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
The cases following Hanak, however, have not all been clear over how close this "close relationship" must be in order to satisfy the test, particularly for cross-claims brought under separate contracts. | The cases following Hanak, however, have not all been clear over how close this "close relationship" must be in order to satisfy the test, particularly for cross-claims brought under separate contracts. | ||
*Some cases have held that the cross-claim must flow out of the same transaction or be closely connected with it (Federal Commerce & Navigation Co Ltd v Molena Alpha Inc (The Nanfri) [1978] 2 QB and {{casenote|Esso Petroleum Co Ltd|Milton}} [1997] 1 WLR 938); | *Some cases have held that the cross-claim must flow out of the same transaction or be closely connected with it (Federal Commerce & Navigation Co Ltd v Molena Alpha Inc (The Nanfri) [1978] 2 QB and {{casenote|Esso Petroleum Co Ltd|Milton}} [1997] 1 WLR 938); | ||
*Others have gone further and required that they also be "inseparably connected" ({{casenote|Bank of Boston Connecticut|European Grain and Shipping Ltd (The Dominique)}} [1989] AC 1056, {{Dole Dried Fruit and Nut Co|Trustin Kerwood Ltd}} [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep 309. | *Others have gone further and required that they also be "inseparably connected" ({{casenote|Bank of Boston Connecticut|European Grain and Shipping Ltd (The Dominique)}} [1989] AC 1056, {{casenote|Dole Dried Fruit and Nut Co|Trustin Kerwood Ltd}} [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep 309. | ||
*There has also been a suggestion that the former "'''impeachment of title'''" test (a requirement that a cross-claim should be so closely connected that it impeaches the claimant's demand) is still relevant ({{casenote|Leon Corporation|Atlantic Lines and Navigation Co Inc (The Leon)}} [1985] 2 Lloyd's Rep 470). | *There has also been a suggestion that the former "'''impeachment of title'''" test (a requirement that a cross-claim should be so closely connected that it impeaches the claimant's demand) is still relevant ({{casenote|Leon Corporation|Atlantic Lines and Navigation Co Inc (The Leon)}} [1985] 2 Lloyd's Rep 470). | ||