Subscribe Subscribe to our blog updates by email. Please also refer to our full terms and conditions. Share this page Charity legal update Legal insights into the charity sector. Divorce law blog Our divorce law blog on our dedicated divorce website. Food and agribusiness blog Legal insights into the food and agribusiness sector. Fusion Public and charity law news for the education sector. Health and care update Analysis and comment on legal, policy and commercial issues. HR law live Commentary on the latest legal and policy updates. Life science law blog Latest legal updates and policy decisions affecting the sector.
Plan-it law Discusses the latest legal and policy developments in planning.
Practical completion Legal insights into the construction and engineering sector. Procurement portal blog News and updates on issues related to public procurement.
Property matters Updates on the latest legal news in real estate. Sports score Commentary relating to legal events in the sports industry. Technology law update Updates, opinions and the latest UK technology law news. Cohabitation Law Practical, legal advice for couples living together. Procurement Portal Resources for those involved in purchasing for public bodies.
Reevaldo Follow the career of our Brazilian superstar footballer! Brexit Articles from legal experts on the process and impact of Brexit. Defying Gravity Research on how businesses can perform in uncertain times. Exciting Disruptors Emerging trends affecting the real estate industry.
Health and care inquests - Resource library Supporting you when dealing with health and care inquests. Most litigators would agree that this is an important issue where further clarification of the law would be helpful when the full appeal hearing finally comes before the Court of Appeal. There are a number of issues that the Court of Appeal will be able to consider, such as the interplay between different causes of action on largely the same facts. In the long term this may reduce the amount of litigation arising out of broadly similar facts.
Read more articles. Clarkslegal Online. Legal Updates Fresh proceedings on same facts - two bites of the cherry? Conclusions Most litigators would agree that this is an important issue where further clarification of the law would be helpful when the full appeal hearing finally comes before the Court of Appeal. For further information about this or any other Dispute Resolution matter please contact Clarkslegal's dispute resolution team by email at disputeresolution clarkslegal.
Disclaimer This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website. The rule in Cherry v Boultbee the "Rule" had all but disappeared from reported cases in this jurisdiction for more than half a century until when it was revived in the Court of Appeal, with potentially dramatic consequences for those within the sphere of influence of insolvent companies.
Last month, two more cases bolstered the rather obscure Rule's new lease of life. The Rule is sometimes referred to as a "right of quasi-retainer", or alternatively the "fund ascertainment principle". It can be briefly summarised as the principle that no one should be admitted to share in the distribution of a fund until he has discharged his obligation to contribute to the fund. At first sight, the principle looks similar to a right of set-off, but it is not.
The Rule can only apply where there is no set-off, because where set-off such as insolvency set-off applies, the Rule is displaced. 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 It is not necessary that the liability to Y has been satisfied out of the fund: it is enough that it may have to be satisfied in the future Funding submitted a proof for its debt in KSF's administration.
The rule against double proof prevented KSF from setting off its indemnity claim against Funding which arose from its guarantee of Funding's liability to the Trustee in accordance with the usual insolvency set-off rules.
Turkey’s Two Bites at a Cherry: Erdoğan or Democracy
KSF's Administrators gave notice under r. In that event, KSF's fund of assets available for distribution to creditors would be notionally increased by the amount of the debt contingently due by Funding to KSF, but the dividend calculated on the notionally increased fund due from KSF to Funding would be reduced by the same amount see the method described in 1 above. Funding had no significant creditors other than the Trustee, who stood to lose the ability to recoup a significant part of its debt if Funding's dividend was reduced by the Rule.
It was in the Trustee's interests to establish that the Rule had been excluded or should be applied differently.
- have two bites of the cherry.
- Two bites at the cherry | WordReference Forums.
- No. 7: Traumes-Wirren.
Bound by the method of application settled by the Court of Appeal in SSSL for the purposes of the High Court hearing , the Trustee therefore sought to argue that the non-compete clause contained in the finance documents excluded the application of the Rule.
The Chancellor held that while an express reference to the Rule was not required to exclude it, a clear intention had to be demonstrated in the wording of the contract. He then went through the non-compete clause, bit by bit, taking a literal interpretative approach to the meaning of the words and the legal characteristics of the Rule, and concluded that the relevant non-compete clause did not evidence a clear intention by the parties to exclude the operation of the Rule.
TWO BITES AT A CHERRY WITH OTHER TALES | Thomas Bailey Aldrich | First edition
The Cattles case involved a group of companies that was seeking to restructure its finances. In order to do so, it became necessary to establish certain creditors' entitlements if the group companies were to go into insolvent liquidation. As with Mills , the case involved a parent and its subsidiary, various banking facilities, and some notes and bonds, some of which had been guaranteed by various group members. Also as in Mills , the parties considered themselves bound by the SSSL interpretation of the Rule, at least in the hearing before the High Court, and so they, too, sought to establish whether the various non-compete clauses contained in the several finance documents excluded the operation of the Rule.
The Judge's finding on this point was obiter but he thought it appropriate to give reasons for the purposes of a subsequent appeal. Cooke HHJ, differing from the Chancellor's approach in Mills whose judgment was published after Cattles , took a more commercial view of the parties' intention as evidenced by the non-compete clauses and decided that the parties had effectively ousted the application of the Rule.
The approaches taken to contractual interpretation by the two judges in Cattles and Mills are completely different: the literal approach of the Chancellor in Mills contrasts with HHJ Cooke's commercial approach in Cattles. Obviously arguments relating to contractual interpretation depend upon the drafting of a particular clause, and so neither case can provide an exact answer to other cases unless an identical clause is being considered. However, an appeal to settle the correct approach to contractual interpretation in these circumstances is highly desirable in the interests of establishing some certainty, especially as the current economic climate is likely to produce more corporate insolvencies where the argument of whether the Rule has been excluded or not will be repeated.
As in these two cases, and in SSSL before them, the effect of applying the Rule often produces big winners and losers. The issue is not likely to go away. The other interesting aspect of any appeal will be the opportunity to review the Court of Appeal's finding in SSSL on how the Rule should be applied, particularly with respect to the amount of an indemnity liability contribution that is required to be brought into account where the guarantor is insolvent.
As SSSL was a Court of Appeal decision, a "leapfrog" appeal to the Supreme Court will be necessary, and we understand that leave to apply for such an appeal has been given. We further understand that permission to appeal was also given in Cattles.
- HAMACON2 Jill (Japanese Edition);
- Funktionen des Weiblichen in the Tempest (German Edition).
- Telesales Tips.
- Eurocom v Siemens: multiple bites of the cherry?.
- News That Matters: Television and American Opinion, Updated Edition (Chicago Studies in American Politics).
- Kim Schaefers Calendar Quilts: 12 Months of Fun, Fusible Projects (Pattern Pack).
- Honey verses Vegemite?
To register for Law-Now, please go to www. Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq. Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article. Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below. Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content.
Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services. Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access.
Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:. Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts Services , subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever. To Use Mondaq. You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.
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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq.