The court set out the history of the development of the law relating to the availability of set-off in the case where a landlord has levied or intends to levy distress.
Held: The law had developed, and an equitable right of set off against a distress for rent might now be available to a tenant.
Neill LJ said: ‘In principle . . I can see no reason to distinguish between the position of a landlord who is asserting his right in respect of arrears of rent by a claim for possession or by an action in debt, on the one hand, and that of a landlord who is asserting identical rights, but who is availing himself of the remedy of distress. In both cases the proper question to be determined is, looking at the state of account between the parties in the light of their rights under the lease, is any sum due to the landlord.’
Hoffmann and Neill LJJ
 QB 272
England and Wales
Cited – Federal Commerce Ltd v Molena Alpha Inc; (The ‘Nanfri’) CA 1978
The court considered whether claim as against a shipowner could be set off against sums due under a time charter hire.
Held: Save for any contractual provision to the contrary a tenant is entitled to deduct from the rent payable, so as to . .
Cited – Fuller v Happy Shopper Markets Ltd and Another ChD 6-Mar-2001
A tenant complained to the landlord about his failure to repair. He ceased paying rent, and the landlord eventually distrained for rent by direct action.
Held: The tenant was unable to claim a legal set-off because there was no context of . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.416723