In re SSSL Realisations (2002) Ltd and Another; Squires and others v AIG Europe (UK) Ltd and Another: CA 18 Jan 2006

A creditor claiming an equity in a debt but who himself owed money to the debtor, could not pursue his claim without first contributing the sum due. A person could not take an aliquot share out of a fund without first contributing what he owed to the fund. That rule applied also in an administration where there was no set off between the two debts.
Chadwick LJ explained the rule in Cherry v Boultby, saying: ‘(1) The general rule applicable in the distribution of a fund is that a person cannot take an aliquot share out of the fund unless he first brings into the fund what he owes. Effect is given to the general rule, as a matter of accounting, by treating the fund as notionally increased by the amount of the contribution; determining the amount of the share by applying the appropriate proportion to the notionally increased fund; and distributing to the claimant the amount of the share (so determined) less the amount of the contribution.’
Chadwick LJ
[2006] EWCA Civ 7, Times 20-Jan-2006, [2006] BPIR 457, [2006] Ch 610, [2007] 1 BCLC 29, [2006] 2 WLR 1369, [2006] WTLR 705, [2006] BCC 233
England and Wales
AppliedIn re Melton, Milk v Towers CA 1918
In 1901 Richard Melton and another guaranteed to a Bank his son Arthur’s debts up to andpound;500. Richard died survived by his widow, Arthur and three daughters, giving his real estate to his widow for her life, with remainder to his four children . .
ExplainedCherry v Boultbee HL 22-Nov-1839
B died having made a will leaving a fund to pay income to A who owed her money but had been made bankrupt before the death. The debt to B remained unpaid.
Held: The liability to pay the debt and the right to receive the legacy had never tested . .
Not followedIn re Fenton CA 1931
A surety under a pre-insolvency guarantee, had not actually paid, and could not pay, being bankrupt with his assets vested in the trustee. The creditor was still owed the money and entitled to prove in the liquidation.
Held: One could not have . .
CitedMidland Banking Co v Chambers 1869
. .
Citedin Re Kayford Ltd ChD 1975
The court considered what was meant by the ‘certainty of words’ requirement necessary to create a trust. Megarry J said: ‘The sender may create a trust by using appropriate words when he sends the money (though I wonder how many do this, even if . .
CitedCherry v Boultbee CA 6-Apr-1838
TB was indebted to CB, his sister, in the sum of andpound;1878. He became bankrupt, and shortly after his bankruptcy C B made her will, giving legacies of andpound;500 and andpound;2,000 to her executors, in trust to pay the interest thereof (as to . .
CitedIn re Polly Peck International plc ChD 1996
It was argued, unsuccessfully, that a special purpose company incorporated in the Cayman Islands should be regarded as a single economic unit with the holding company, so as to eliminate ‘double dip’ as well as double dividend.
Held: There . .
CitedSecretary of State for Trade and Industry v Frid HL 13-May-2004
The company went into insolvent liquidation. The secretary of state was to make payments to employees and there were other state preferential creditors. At the same time a refund of VAT was due from the Commissioners of customs and Excise.
Cited by:
CitedBrazzill and Others v Willoughby and Others CA 27-May-2010
The regulated bank Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander Ltd (KSF) was in financial difficulties. The Bank of England required KSF to credit to a trust account all future deposits. KSF later went into insolvency. Some deposits had been credited to the . .
BindingRe Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander Ltd ChD 19-Feb-2010
. .
CitedIn re Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander Ltd CA 11-May-2010
The court was asked as to the set-off, in a company administration, of future debts owed by the company to its creditors and by those creditors to the company, and whether the effect of those provisions was that, after the future debts were . .
CitedIn re Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander Ltd SC 19-Oct-2011
The bank had been put into administrative receivership, and the court was now asked as to how distributions were to be made, and in particular as to the application of the equitable rule in Cherry v Boultbee in the rule against double proof as it . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 January 2021; Ref: scu.238731