82,467
edits
National Westminster Bank Ltd v Halesowen: Difference between revisions
National Westminster Bank Ltd v Halesowen (view source)
Revision as of 12:32, 7 August 2020
, 7 August 2020no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
The majority view that the insolvency set-off provisions were mandatory and that a party could not waive them or contract out of them is regarded as the settled law. This position has now been affirmed by the subsequent (unanimous) House of Lords decisions in {{cite|Stein|Blake|1996|AC|243}} and {{cite1|Re Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (No 8)|1998|AC|214}} | The majority view that the insolvency set-off provisions were mandatory and that a party could not waive them or contract out of them is regarded as the settled law. This position has now been affirmed by the subsequent (unanimous) House of Lords decisions in {{cite|Stein|Blake|1996|AC|243}} and {{cite1|Re Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (No 8)|1998|AC|214}} | ||
Quoth Lord Justice Buckley, as he then was:<ref>I love it how judges say this about each other. It’s a fine manifestation of the legal eagle]]’s obsession with [[identity]].</ref> | |||
:''Nor is [''the Banker’s right to combine accounts''] a [[set-off]] situation, which postulates mutual but independent obligations between the two parties. It is an ''accounting'' situation, in which the existence and amount of one party’s liability to the other can only be ascertained by discovering the ultimate balance of their mutual dealing.'' | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||