header-logo header-logo

Set-off

17 May 2012
Issue: 7514 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Emblaze Mobility Solutions Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2012] All ER (D)
63 (May)

In respect of assignees, s 133 of the Finance Act 2008 was clearly intended to impose a set-off on an assignee where no such set-off had been permissible prior to its enactment. The general, established, principle was that set-off was founded in simple convenience and fairness. It should be taken to apply generally to all liquidated cross-claims unless excluded by statute or contract. Further, the test for equitable set-off required that cross-claims were so closely connected with the claimant’s demands that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the claimant to enforce the payment without taking into account the cross-claim. 

 
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel—James McSweeney

Quinn Emanuel—James McSweeney

London promotion underscores firm’s investment in white collar and investigations

Ward Hadaway—Louise Miller

Ward Hadaway—Louise Miller

Private client team strengthened by partner appointment

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

Kate Gaskell, CEO of Flex Legal, reflects on chasing her childhood dreams underscores the importance of welcoming those from all backgrounds into the profession

NEWS
Overcrowded prisons, mental health hospitals and immigration centres are failing to meet international and domestic human rights standards, the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) has warned
Two speedier and more streamlined qualification routes have been launched for probate and conveyancing professionals
Workplace stress was a contributing factor in almost one in eight cases before the employment tribunal last year, indicating its endemic grip on the UK workplace
In Ward v Rai, the High Court reaffirmed that imprecise points of dispute can and will be struck out. Writing in NLJ this week, Amy Dunkley of Bolt Burdon Kemp reports on the decision and its implications for practitioners
Could the Supreme Court’s ruling in R v Hayes; R v Palombo unintentionally unsettle future complex fraud trials? Maia Cohen-Lask of Corker Binning explores the question in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll