




Mutual debts can reduce or completely cancel a money claim where a genuine cross-claim exists, but which rule applies depends on whether the debts arise from the same contract, from separate dealings, or from a formal insolvency. The main routes are contractual set-off, equitable set-off, independent legal set-off, and insolvency set-off. Defendants plead it under CPR 16.6, while insolvency cases fall under section 323 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
TL;DR:
- Legal offset requires two fixed, calculable debts between the same parties acting in the same capacity; equitable offset instead requires closely connected claims.
- Check the contract for a clause barring offset, and confirm neither debt was assigned nor held on trust, since either can defeat mutuality.
- Under CPR 16.6, plead the offset in your defense with its amount, supporting facts, and documents; use a Part 20 claim to recover any excess.
- Section 323 requires insolvency debts to be netted at the insolvency date, including qualifying future or contingent claims; creditors can prove only the balance.
- A Part 36 offer must state whether it accounts for an offset or counterclaim, since ambiguity can fuel later disputes over costs.
Set-off works by replacing two separate debts with a single net figure, so instead of each party paying the other in full, only the balance changes hands. This matters because it can shrink a claim, wipe it out entirely, or even leave the original claimant owing money once the cross-claim is accounted for. Legal commentary on set-off) describes it as replacing gross debts between parties with a single net position, which is exactly the outcome a defendant is aiming for when raising it as a defence.
Several recognised types exist, and knowing which one fits your facts changes how you plead it:
A supplier owed £10,000 for goods, who also caused £4,000 of damage during delivery, illustrates equitable set-off well: the claims arise from the same transaction, so a court is likely to let the £4,000 reduce the £10,000 owed.
Courts look for mutuality first: the debts must be between the same parties, in the same capacity. A claim held personally cannot usually be set off against a debt owed to a company you control, because the legal persons are different even if you feel like the same party.
Liquidated claims (a fixed, calculable sum) are far easier to rely on than unliquidated ones (damages still to be assessed), particularly for legal set-off, which demands both debts be liquidated. Equitable set-off is more forgiving on this point, since it only requires a close connection between the transactions, but the connection still has to be real rather than convenient.
A few practical checks matter before relying on any of this:
Practitioner guidance warns that a “no set-off” clause in a commercial contract can shut this defence down entirely, so reading the contract before building an argument saves wasted effort.
Under CPR 16.6, a defendant who believes they are owed money by the claimant can include this as a defence of set-off against the whole or part of the claim. This applies whether or not the same facts are also raised as a Part 20 counterclaim, which is a separate additional claim seeking its own judgment rather than simply reducing the claimant’s.
The two routes work differently in practice:
Drafting matters as much as strategy. Particulars of the set-off need a clear figure, the facts giving rise to it, and reference to supporting documents, with the court often asking for directions on disclosure once both sides’ positions are on the table.
Pro Tip: Plead the set-off in the defence even if you also intend to bring a Part 20 claim, since omitting it risks losing the ability to rely on it later.
Where one party is insolvent, the rules change from optional to mandatory. Section 323 of the Insolvency Act 1986 requires an account to be taken of mutual dealings between the insolvent party and its counterparty, with only the net balance being provable or payable. Neither side can opt out once the conditions are met.
This account is taken as at the date insolvency begins, which makes record-keeping up to that point important for anyone with a live claim against a company heading into liquidation or an individual entering bankruptcy.
Preserving invoices, statements and correspondence that show the mutual dealings up to the relevant date helps ensure the right figure gets proved.
Building a set-off defence that survives scrutiny means assembling evidence early, not scrambling for it once a defence is due. Courts expect a quantified figure tied to source documents, not a round number asserted without support.
A Part 36 offer must state whether it accounts for a counterclaim or set-off, because that clarity affects the cost consequences if the matter proceeds to judgment. An ambiguous offer can leave both sides arguing about costs long after the substantive dispute is settled.
For businesses still tidying up the paper trail, a bookkeeping clean-up and reconciliation checklist is a useful starting point before trying to quantify a cross-claim for pleadings.
A strong defence rests on the paperwork, not the argument alone. Before filing anything, pull together the invoices, contract terms, correspondence and payment history that show the mutual debts and when they arose.
Where the dispute sits on the other side, meaning you are the one owed money rather than defending a claim, a debt recovery route rather than a set-off argument may be the better fit, and we cover that option further down.
The most common mistake is assuming mutuality exists without checking whether the debts involve the same parties in the same capacity, which can unravel an otherwise strong defence. A close second is overlooking a contract clause that excludes set-off entirely, and a third is pleading a figure that isn’t tied to clear documents.
My own rule of thumb: weigh what you can actually prove against what the fight will cost, both in legal fees and in the business relationship, before deciding to press the point in court rather than settle it.
— Jack
Set-off is a defendant’s tool. When we’re the one owed money and a cross-claim isn’t the problem, slow payment or avoidance is, pursuing recovery directly tends to make more sense than waiting for a courtroom argument over mutual debts.
Several services are available that are built for exactly that situation:
Before reaching out, having the invoice details, correspondence dates and a copy of the underlying contract ready speeds up the process considerably. We match each case to a vetted collection agency based on debt type, amount, age and location rather than leaving you to search blindly, so starting your business debt recovery with those details in hand is the fastest way to see what options are available.
This article is general information, not a substitute for advice from a qualified lawyer. Consult a qualified legal professional about your own circumstances before acting on anything here.
Set-off in administration follows a similar principle to liquidation: mutual debts between the insolvent company and a creditor are netted so only the balance is provable, under the framework set out in section 323 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The account is taken as at the relevant insolvency date, and creditors should keep records showing mutual dealings up to that point.
The common law (legal, or independent) right of set-off allows two liquidated debts between the same parties to be set against each other, even where they arise from entirely unconnected transactions. It differs from equitable set-off, which requires the cross-claims to be closely connected rather than simply owed between the same two parties.
Set-off is a defensive argument that reduces or extinguishes what the claimant is owed, while a counterclaim is an additional claim seeking a separate judgment in the defendant’s favour. Practitioner guidance describes this as the shield versus sword distinction, and a defendant can often plead both together.
Set-off is the legal mechanism that allows a sum one party owes another to be reduced or cancelled by a genuine debt owed in the other direction, so the parties settle only the net balance. It can arise from a contract term, from equitable principles where claims are closely connected, from independent liquidated debts, or automatically under insolvency rules.
Anyone building or defending a set-off argument benefits from going straight to the primary rules rather than relying on summaries. The Civil Procedure Rules Part 16 set out how a defence is structured and how set-off fits within it, while Part 20 governs additional claims and counterclaims that sit alongside or instead of a set-off defence.
Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules governs offers to settle and the cost consequences that follow, which becomes relevant the moment a set-off or counterclaim is on the table. For insolvency cases, section 323 of the Insolvency Act 1986 is the governing provision for mandatory netting of mutual dealings.

For a broader explanation of set-off types and the policy reasoning behind mandatory insolvency netting, legal commentary on set-off gives useful context alongside the primary legislation. Practitioner analysis from Gowling WLG is a solid next step for understanding how contract clauses and evidence requirements shape a real set-off argument.
Category :
Share :