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 legal proceedings upon which such a claim must depend, but nevertheless he was able to assert an equitable set-off, because of the close relationship between the claim and the basis of the set-off, which would leave a balance due to him.
Gazette 15-Feb-2001, Times 06-Mar-2001,  EWHC Ch 702,  25 EG 159,  2 LLR 49,  2 Lloyd’s Rep 49,  2 EGLR 32,  L and TR 16,  1 WLR 1681
England and Wales
Cited – Wilkinson And Another v Godefroy 17-Jan-1839
The court considered a claim for the recovery of money from a stakeholder to whom it had been entrusted, in which case a demand is necessary to throw upon the depositee a duty to repay. . .
Cited – Freeman v Jeffries CExC 1868
(Court of Exchequer) The incoming tenant plaintiff had agreed to buy the outgoing tenant’s interest in a farm at a price determined by two valuers. He paid pounds 2,000 on account; the valuation took place; the plaintiff gave to the outgoing tenant . .
Cited – Baker v Courage and Co 1910
The plaintiff had owned a public house. On selling the leasehold to the defendants brewers, they had overpaid him by andpound;1,000. He deposited a sum at interest with the defendants. When he came to withdraw the last of the deposit (by coincidence . .
Cited – Kleinwort Benson Ltd v South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council ChD 1994
A claim for money had and received fell within section 5 Limitation Act, should be treated with caution. Hobhouse J said: ‘The cause of action in money had and received arises when the relevant money is paid by the plaintiff to the defendant.’
Cited – Sim v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council 1981
The 1870 Act applied where an employee’s contract was terminated in the course of a period at the end of which payment would be made. Scott J said: ‘Mr Goudie submitted that the real question was whether a teacher was entitled to be paid for the . .
Cited – Aectra Refining and Marketing Inc v Exmar NN CA 15-Aug-1994
A time loss claim can found a legal set-off claim against ship owners, provided that the loss claim can be made in the same court. The court referred to a ‘transaction set-off and independent set-off’. Cross-claims must both be due and payable, and . .
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 – Eller v Grovecrest Investments Ltd CA 1995
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 . .
Cited – Talbot v Frere CA 1878
Sir George Jessel MR said: ‘there could not be a set-off until action brought and set-off pleaded.’ . .
Cited – Stein v Blake HL 18-May-1995
Where A and B each have claims against each other and A is insolvent, the common amount is set off, and the net difference remains as a debt due.
Hoffmann L said: ‘It is a matter of common occurrence for an individual to become insolvent while . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant, Equity
Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.80707