In Scots law it would be inequitable for a debtor of a bankrupt to be required to pay his debt in full, while he could only get a dividend for the debt due to him by the bankrupt, but there is no consensus as to whether this principle is a species of retention, as Lord McLaren in Ross v Ross (1895) 22 R 461 suggests, or an extension of compensation by which one claim may be set-off against another, resulting in the extinction of the former claim.
Judges:
Lord Hodge
Citations:
[2010] ScotCS CSOH – 80
Links:
Citing:
Considered – Ross v Ross SCS 1895
The pursuer was the widow of Sir Charles Ross who died in 1883 and was succeeded by his pupil son. From then until 1893, when her son attained majority, the pursuer had acted as his sole tutor and curator. She was entitled to an annuity of . .
Cited by:
Cited – Heritable Bank Plc, Administrators of v The Winding-Up Board of Landsbanki Islands Hf SC 27-Feb-2013
A claim by Heritable (H) in Landsbanki’s (L) insolvency had been rejected and then withdrawn before the Icelandic court, and L now appealed against rejection of its own assertion that that Icelandic decision was binding also within its own claim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Scotland, Insolvency
Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420859