UK: Cross-Contract Set Off - What Is The View Of The Courts?

In the mêlée of day-to-day commercial relationships, how easy is it for clients to link contracts unwittingly and thereby create a cross-contract set off? In which direction is the court moving in this area and how alert need clients be when seeking to enforce payment?


In June 2010 the Court of Appeal handed down a unanimous Judgment in the case of Geldof Metaalconstructie NV v Simon Carves Ltd ("Geldof") [2010] EWCA Civ 667. The Leading Judgment was given by Lord Justice Rix. In the Geldof case the Court of Appeal reviewed the Judgment of His Honour Judge Raynor QC sitting as a High Court Judge in the Manchester District Registry of the Technology and Construction Court and in particular issues relating to equitable set off and cross-contractual set off provisions.

In this paper, I investigate the two questions, how easy is it for clients to link contracts unwittingly and thereby create a cross-contract set off? and which direction are the Courts moving in this area and how alert need clients be when seeking to enforce payment? Before addressing these questions I set out the background to the law of set off, the equitable set off position prior to the Geldof decision and the law as it now stands following the decision in Geldof. I then look at how the Judgment of Lord Justice Rix affects the two questions.

Background to the law of set off

Before looking at the different types of set off, lets consider why set off is important. Set off is the ability of a debtor to reduce or eliminate entirely the debtor's liability to a creditor by taking into account monies owed by the creditor to the debtor. In litigation set off operates as a defence to a claim rather than a separate stand alone counterclaim. Commercially set off can be used not only as a defence to a claim, but also, to reduce or eliminate monies owed to another party. In construction we are all used to the Section 111 of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act set off notice. Indeed today this will be the most common type of set off used in the construction industry. A ground for withholding may be an equitable set-off. There are three main categories of set off:

Legal set off - a procedural remedy which applies only in litigation. It applies where there are mutual debts which are both due and payable at commencement of the action. The amounts of debts must be readily ascertained, therefore excluding unliquidated damages claims. The debts need not be connected, that is in relation to the same contract of the same subject matter.

Equitable set off - which is the issue we are looking at in this paper, is considered below. The old leading case of Rawson v Samuel1 held that equitable set-off was available as a defence when "the title of the Plaintiff to his demand is impeached". A classic example of this is a claim for unliquidated damages in negligence being used to set off a claim for monies payable under a contract. Equitable set off can be used not only as a defence for the claim but also as a grounds to withhold payment of a debt.

Insolvency set-off - The final form of set off is insolvency set off which derives from the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Insolvency Rules 1986. This relates purely to mutual dealings of the parties where one party is insolvent. This simply assists the creditor who might be otherwise required to pay debts owed to the insolvent party to avoid paying those debts. This is a separate breed of set off and not relevant to the questions raised in this paper.

Equitable set off pre Geldof - in his Judgment, Rix LJ reviewed the law as it stood on equitable set off. As already set out above, the law of equitable set off has its roots in the case of Rawson v Samuel but as is identified by Rix LJ the modern law of equitable set off is generally considered to date from the case of Hanak v Green2 Morris LJ in his Judgment set out the law in these terms:

"The position is, therefore, that since Judicature Acts there may be (1) a set off of mutual debt; (2) in certain cases a setting up of matters of complaint which, established, reduce or even extinguish the claim; and (3) reliance is a matter of defence upon matters of equity which formally might have called for injunction or prohibition...

The cases within group (3) are those in which a Court of equity would have regarded the cross-claims as entitling defendants to be protected in one way or another against the plaintiff's claim."

Rix LJ also referred to the case of Bankes v Jarvis3 which Morris LJ identified two factors as critical that it would have been "manifestly unjust" for the claim to be enforced without regard to the cross-claim and "there was a close relationship between the dealings and transactions which gave rise to respective claims". The Learned Judge reviewed the law in detail but for our purposes, the main cases were Lord Dennings Judgment in Federal Commerce & Navigation Co Ltd v Molena Alpha Inc4 ("The Nanfri"). In this case the Court had to consider whether claims against a ship owner could be set off against time charter hire. The issue had to be decided against a background of the historical rule excluding set off against voyage charter freight and special terms in the time charter in question permitting deductions in certain circumstances. Lord Denning said:

"But one thing is clear: it is not every cross-claim which can be deducted. It is only cross-claims that arise out of the same transaction or are closely connected with it. And it is only cross-claims which go directly to impeach the plaintiff's demands, that is, so closely connected with his demands that it would be manifestly unjust to allow him to enforce payment without taking into account the cross-claim."5

Lord Brandon in the case of Bank of Boston Connecticut v European Grain and Sugar Ltd6 ("The Dominique") also considered the position and stated:

"But rather that it was a cross-claim, flowing out of an inseparably connected with the dealings and transactions which also gives rise to the claim"

However, although the cases above appear to be moving away from restricting equitable set off to matters arising from the same contract, all of the cases above related to the same contract, Rawson remains good law. In the case of Dole Dried Fruit and Nut Co v Trustin Kerwood Ltd7 the Court considered a claim for equitable set off where there were two contracts one an over arching agreement and the other part of a series of sale contracts. Rix LJ summarised the case as follows:

"The plaintiff was now claiming for the price of goods sold under the latest of such sale contracts, and the defendant was seeking to set off its counterclaim for repudiation by the plaintiff of the distribution agreement. This Court held that the counterclaim could be set off and that there was thus an arguable defence to the claim for the price of goods sold."

Therefore a multi-contract set off was allowable.

Finally, we have the case of Bin Kemi v Blackburn Chemicals Limited8 a case concerning a claim by the clamant for damages for repudiation of a 1994 distribution agreement for the supply of a product called Dispelair. The defendant denied the existence of the agreement and in the alternative counterclaimed for damages for repudiation by the claimant. Under the heading of "Close Connection" Potter LJ reviewed the authorities and commented as follows:

"The Dole Fruit case illustrates the wise refusal of this Court to become bogged down in the nuances of differences between the formulation of the test propounded in The Nanfri, both in relation to the earlier criterion of "impeachment of title" disapproved by Lord Brandon in the Bank of Boston case, and in relation to the need for a "close connection" between claim and cross-claim... It seems that, insofar as there may be a difference, the Court has been content for the outcome to be governed by the notion of fairness involved in the proposition that it must be "manifestly unjust" to allow one to be enforced without regard to the other. For myself, I consider that Lord Brandon's formulation is to be preferred because on the one hand it emphasizes that the degree of closeness required is that of an "inseperable connection", while on the other it makes clear that it is not necessary that the cross-claim should arise out of the same contract; all that is required is that it should flow from the dealings and transactions which gave rise to the subject of the claim..."

What is perhaps most interesting about all of the above judgments is that they go to support the comment of Thorpe LJ in Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Milton9 as "claims to equitable set-off ultimately depend upon the judge's assessment of the result that justice requires" What we are left with, prior to Geldof is arguably a lack of clarity on two points the role of the justice element of the Hanak test and whether or not the "inseparable connection" referred to in The Dominique was denying a right to rely on equitable set-off in a case of multiple contracts in all but the rarest of cases.

As Rix LJ identified the law needed to be clarified. That clarification came in the Geldof case.

Gelfdof Metaalconstrucie NV V Simon Carves Ltd

Before setting out the law, as formulated by Rix LJ, it is important to just give a brief overview of the facts. In the case Geldof supplied pressure vessels and storage tanks for bioethanol plants. Simon Carves Ltd ("SCL") was the lead contractor for the construction of a bioethanol plant on Teeside. SCL entered into a supply contract with Geldof for the supply of pressure vessels in July 2007, SCL then, after a separate tender process, entered into an installation contract with Geldof for storage tanks in December 2007. Therefore, the only relationship between the two contracts was the site and the parties and nothing further at this stage. At this stage it would be difficult to argue that these two contracts were in any way closely connected or to use the language of case law inseperably connected.

Relations between Geldof and SCL deteriorated and in August 2008 Geldof stopped work under the December 2007 installation contract and refused to resume work unless outstanding invoices arising both under the installation contract and the supply contract were met. Geldof maintained this position again in December 2008 and in response SCL terminated the installation contract.

It will come as no surprise to this audience that litigation then followed with Geldof seeking summary Judgment for payments of, among others, one of the invoices under the supply contract. SCL sought to set off against Geldof's claim its claim for unliquidated damages for repudiation of the installation contract. At first instance His Honour Judge Raynor QC granted the application for summary judgment, primarily on the grounds that Geldof's claim and SCL's claim lacked the necessary close inseparable connection and SCL was not entitled to set off.

SCL appealed.

On the review of the law Rix LJ determined that the law needed clarification and established a test with two elements. A functional and formal element which each element performed a different role as follows:

The formal element ensures "that the doctrine of equitable set off was based on principle and not discretion" not a view shared by Thorpe LJ); and

The functional element is required "to remind litigants and Courts that the ultimate rationality of is equity".

Rix LJ stated that the best statement for the test for equitable set off was Lord Denning's formulation in The Nanfri less any reference to impeachment of title. The formal element is the requirement of close connection a close connection that need not flow out of the same contract and the functional element is the need for equitable set-off to be deployed to avoid "manifest injustice."

Rix LJ's formulation of the test is as follows:

"cross-claims ... so closely connected with [the plaintiff's] demands that it would be manifestly unjust to allow him to enforce payment without taking into account the cross-claim"

The result of the application of this test was to overturn the Judgment of HHJ Raynor QC in the lower Court. The reason being, that Geldof by making payment of the invoices under the supply contract a condition of its resuming work under the installation contract had brought the two contracts into "intimate relationship with one another". SCL then made the relationship "inseparable and irrevocable" by terminating the installation contract in reliance on Geldof's poor performance and raising demands for payment. The two contracts were therefore brought into "close and inseparable relationship with one another" thus fulfilling the formal requirement for close connection. He then determined that it would be manifestly unjust not to deploy equitable set-off in this situation.

Rix LJ confirmed that this would be enough to meet the test for equitable set-off on its own, but, then went on to note that the contracts were also connected practically because, they both related to the bioethanol plant, the vessels supplied on the supply contract were useless without proper performance and installation contract and the warranty under the supply contract was linked to practical completion of the plant. On this basis it would "not be fair" ie "manifestly unjust" to enforce payment under the supply contract when there was a claim under the installation contract.

How easy is it for clients to link contracts unwittingly and thereby create a cross-contract set off?

Setting aside the fact that many people intentionally link contracts, as was the case with Clause 24 of the SCL order, the Judgment of Rix LJ has made it clear that parties may, by their conduct, bring two unconnected contracts into close connection by linking performance of one with payments under the other. Applying the test formulated by Rix LJ in Geldof clients need to be wary that if they wish to enforce payment of an invoice they should be careful not to link it other contracts where their own performance could be disputed. In the writer's view, rather than it being an unwitting matter it would indeed as in the Judgment in Geldof gives a debtor a template for bringing otherwise separate contractual claims together and to allow for the use of equitable set off which would not otherwise be permissible.

In which direction is the Court moving in this area and how alert need clients be when seeking to enforce payment?

It is quite clear that the Courts have slightly widened the scope of equitable set off. However, this goes against the push as part of the review of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act in which there was much debate over the need to outlaw the use of cross-contractual set off clauses, like Clause 24 of the SCL contract, in order to avoid the linking of more than one construction contract.


In conclusion it is possible to unwittingly link two contracts but based on Geldof it is only in limited circumstances where the courts feel that it is manifestly unjust for one party to enforce a right under a contract when a claim exists for the other party under a separate contract that the courts will consider equitable set off across contracts. The courts may, on their own admission, have slightly widened the rule but as this is equity it will be applied more on a case by case basis.


1. [1848] CR and TH 161, 41

2. [1958] 2 QB 9

3. [1903] 1 KB 549

4. [1978] 2 QB 927

5. At 974G/975A.

6. [1989] AC 1056

7. [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep 309

8. [2001] 2 Lloyd's Rep 93

9. [1997] 1 WLR 938, 953

To see further articles from Fenwick Elliott please go to

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.