Part Payment in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 15 Jun 1942

    It is clear that any civilised system of law is bound to provide remedies for cases of what has been called unjust enrichment or unjust benefit, that is to prevent a man from retaining the money of or some benefit derived from another which it is against conscience that he should keep.

  • Parkinson (Sir Lindsay) & Company Ltd v Triplan Ltd
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 19 Ene 1973

    Mr. Levy helpfully suggests some of the matters which the Court might take into account, such as whether the company's claim is bona fide and not a sham and whether the company has a reasonably good prospect of success. Again it will consider whether there is an admission by the defendants on the pleadings or elsewhere that money is due. The Court might also consider whether the application for security was being used oppressively - so as to try and stifle a genuine claim.

  • McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd (No. 2)
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 20 Jun 2001

    The purpose for which the power to order the payment of costs on an indemnity basis is conferred, as it seems to me, is to enable the court, in a case to which CPR 36.21 applies, to address the element of perceived unfairness which arises from the fact that an award of costs on the standard basis will, almost invariably, lead to the successful claimant recovering less than the costs which he has to pay to his solicitor.

  • Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Redrow Group Plc
    • House of Lords
    • 11 Feb 1999

    Once the taxpayer has identified the payment the question to be asked is: did he obtain anything - anything at all - used or to be used for the purposes of his business in return for that payment? This will normally consist of the supply of goods or services to the taxpayer. But it may equally well consist of the right to have goods delivered or services rendered to a third party.

  • Matthews v Metal Improvements
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 14 Mar 2007

    Essentially, what has happened is that events have justified the Defendant's assessment of the total value of the claim, and falsified the Claimant's assessment. Changes in circumstances between the date of a Part 36 payment and trial are contingencies inherent in litigation. They cannot of themselves normally justify a conclusion that the defendant should be deprived of the benefit of his payment. It follows that there was no reason to depart from the normal rule.

  • British Railways Board v Coustoms and Excise Commissioners
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 01 Abr 1977

    To my mind they supplied transport by rail: and the £1.50 was part-payment for it. It is not correct to separate the £1.50 as if it was a separate payment for some separate service - separate from the travel by rail. The £1.50 is really part and parcel of the payment which the student makes for travelling on the railway. Just as a season ticket is payment in full in advance for travelling on the railway (whether the passenger uses it or not), so also this £1.50 is part-payment in advance.

  • White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor
    • House of Lords
    • 06 Dic 1961

    It may well be that, if it can be shown that a person has no legitimate interest, financial or otherwise, in performing the contract rather than claiming damages, he ought not to be allowed to saddle the other party with an additional burden with no benefit to himself. If a party has no interest to enforce a stipulation he cannot in general enforce it: so it might be said that if a party has no interest to insist on a particular remedy he ought not to be allowed to insist on it.

See all results
Legislation
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
  • MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd: The Practical Benefit Doctrine Marches On
    • Núm. 80-2, Marzo 2017
    • The Modern Law Review
    In MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd the Court of Appeal held that when an ongoing contract is varied so that one party's obligation to pay money is reduced, the variation is...
    ...... of Appeal held that when an ongoing contract is varied so that one party’s obligation to pay mone y is reduced, the variation is binding as long ... effectively confined the rule in Foakes v Beer to one-off payments. This raises serious questions about the continued survival of Foakes v ......
  • Compulsory purchase and compensation update – 2014
    • Núm. 32-6, Agosto 2014
    • Journal of Property Investment & Finance
    • 653-659
    Purpose: – The purpose of this paper is to summarise and analyse the new compensation provisions brought in by the government for Phase 1 of the HS2 high-speed train line. Design/methodology/appro...
    ......Findings – For the most part, and the Homeowner Payment Scheme (HPS) is a marked exception, the new HS2 ......
  • Proposal for a Directive on systemic risk in payment systems
    • Núm. 5-1, Enero 1997
    • Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance
    • 29-36
    The past decade, with its unprecedented surge in financial activity and the occurence of financial crises, has been one of increased awareness on the part of both regulatory authorities and market ...
    ...... unprecedented surge in financial activity and the occurence of finan- cial crises, has been one of increased awareness on the part of both regulatory authorities and market participants of payment system's poten- tial for propagating and amplifying financial ......
  • Reducing systemic risk in payment and securities settlement systems
    • Núm. 6-2, Febrero 1998
    • Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance
    • 107-134
    The past decade, with its unprecedented surge in financial activity and financial crises, has been one of increased awareness on the part of both regulatory authorities and market participants of t...
    ...... decade, with its unprecedented surge in financial activity and financial crises, has been one of increased awareness on the part of both regulatory authorities and market partici- pants of the potential of payment systems for propagating and amplifying ......
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT