‘In the first of our “Remind me about” series, John Grocott-Barrett of Wilberforce Chambers summarises the law relating to these two important sections of the Pensions Act 1995. The “Remind me about” series is aimed as a training tool and as an update for busy practitioners.’
Pensions Barrister, 22nd March 2023
Source: www.pensionsbarrister.com
‘I appreciate that not everyone will agree but, as well as striving to get to the right answer, correctly applying the law, and so on, most adjudicators also want to provide the parties with a decision that is ultimately enforceable by the TCC. I think I also speak for most adjudicators when I say that it comes as somewhat of a relief when we read a judgment on BAILII or the like and we’ve been enforced.
But what about cases where only part of the decision is enforced, and the other part is severed? It is arguable that for the adjudicator it is, to use the language of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, “just a flesh wound”. However, I can attest to the fact that it is frustrating, having been one of the first adjudicators to be severed back in 2012 in Beck Interiors v UK Flooring Contractors. I was thoroughly annoyed with myself for getting it wrong and only part of my decision was enforced (but I was assured by my peers that “tis but a scratch”).’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 19th January 2022
‘The claim related to an opportunity to develop a Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) dealership in Wolverhampton (the Wolverhampton Opportunity), which the claimants alleged was lost due to the negligence of the defendant solicitors.’
Hailsham Chambers, 8th October 2021
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘QOCS applies to most personal injury (“PI”) claims. It usually limits the ability of a successful defendant to recover its costs against an unsuccessful claimant.’
Lamb Chambers, October 2021
Source: www.lambchambers.co.uk
‘Clare Hartley and Chloe Postlethwaite analyse the latest favourable ruling for landlords in relation to commercial rent recovery during Covid-19, a judgment that confirms landlords can currently still rely on the court route notwithstanding the UK Government’s plans for arbitration next year.’
Local Government Lawyer, 15th October 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has held that defendants cannot set off opposing costs orders in cases covered by qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS), in what has been hailed as a significant win for claimants.’
Legal Futures, 6th October 2021
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Hot on the heels of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd, in what may be the first summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision in favour of a party in administration, we have successfully represented the claimant in Styles and Wood Ltd (in administration) (S&W) v GE CIF Trustees Ltd.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 1st October 2020
‘The Supreme Court has given judgment in what is being hailed as a landmark case in the construction and insolvency spheres. The decision has not only eliminated any doubt that there is jurisdiction for an insolvent company to adjudicate against a respondent with a potential cross-claim, but it has also endorsed the use of adjudication as a helpful tool for liquidators.’
3 Hare Court, 22nd June 2020
Source: www.3harecourt.com
‘Lord Justice Coulson’s judgment included the proposition that an insolvent Company could only adjudicate a dispute with a creditor in circumstances of mutual debts in “exceptional circumstances”. Subsequent caselaw has explored the extent of these “exceptional circumstances”.’
3PB, 18th June 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘This appeal was against the Deputy Master’s refusal in [2019] EWHC 3414 (Ch) to dismiss Blacks, the tenant’s counterclaim or to grant a summary money judgement in relation to S&H, the landlord’s claim for rent for over £400,000. It raised complicated issues concerning the construction and inter-relation between a set-off clause and a certification provision.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 10th June 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has urged the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to consider preventing defendants setting off costs in cases covered by qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS).’
Litigation Futures, 14th April 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The High Court has rejected a London borough’s bid to set off the pension benefits of a former senior finance officer who defrauded the council.’
Local Government Lawyer, 24th November 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Ms Oliver was the long leaseholder in a block of flats on the Lansdowne Estate, which was owned by the Council. The Council carried out city wide major works, which included works on the Lansdown Estate. Some of the works were eligible for a contribution from a commercial energy company as part of the Community Energy Savings Programme (“CESP”). In total 15 of the 25 blocks on the Lansdowne Estate were eligible to receive CESP funding. The contribution to Ms Oliver’s block was £43,570.44. The Council decided not to pass the CESP directly to the leaseholders as a set off against their service charge contributions. Rather, the Council decided to attribute the money to the funding of works to its city-wide housing stock. The effect of this was that every leaseholder’s service charge was reduced irrespective of whether their block had been entitled to CESP funding.’
Nearly Legal, 10th April 2017
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Where the taxpayer made a claim for repayment of VAT which had been paid owing to a mistake, all the consequences of the mistake were to be taken into account in assessing the quantum of his claim. The revenue was, therefore, entitled under section 81(3A) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to take into account both credits and debits and to set off amounts of input tax it had wrongly paid to the taxpayer against the amount the taxpayer now claimed to be repaid in respect of output tax it wrongly paid to the revenue.’
WLR Daily, 22nd May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2010] UKSC 58; [2010] WLR (D) 333
“When interpreting a deeming provision in a taxing statute it was important not to take the hypothesis further than was warranted. It followed that the deeming provisions in corporation tax legislation on sale and resale ‘repo’ transactions — whereby the parties’ accounts were to be debited and credited on the basis that it was a deemed loan relationship between them — were to be construed so that they reflected the statutory purpose of taxing such transactions on a uniform basis and not so that one party could claim a debit which could be set off against other liabilities.”
WLR Daily, 16th December 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Geldof Metaalconstructie NV v Simon Carves Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 667; [2010] WLR (D) 146
“A defendant was entitled to set off against the claimant’s claim under an installation contract a counterclaim under a separate supply contract, because the claimant had itself linked the two contracts by demanding payment of invoices under the supply contract as a condition of continuing performance of the installation contract. In addition, the supply contract contained a right to set-off clause which went further than the common law in permitting the defendant to set off “any amounts lawfully due” against the purchase price.”
WLR Daily, 14th June 2010
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
In re Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Ltd (in administration) [2010] EWCA Civ 518; [2010] WLR (D) 119
© Inner Temple Library 2024