Defence versus set-off: plea of defective work was treated as denial of liability, so no court fee was payable.

A plea must be characterised from the written statement as a whole, not by isolated expressions. Although set-off, including equitable set-off, generally attracts court fee, that applies only where the defendant asserts an independent claim capable of standing alongside the plaintiff's claim. Where the particulars of defective work were pleaded only to show non-performance of the contract and to defeat the plaintiff's entitlement to recover, the plea operates as a defence in diminution or negation of liability. On that reasoning, the written statement was not a set-off and no court fee was payable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the defendant's pleading in the written statement was a set-off attracting court fee under Section 8 of the Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, or merely a defence to the suit claim for defective work.

Analysis: The character of the pleading had to be determined from the written statement as a whole and not from an isolated sentence. Although a set-off, including an equitable set-off, ordinarily attracts court fee, that principle applies only where the defendant asserts a claim which can stand independently along with the plaintiff's claim. Here, the particulars of defects and the valuation of the alleged loss were set out only to show that the plaintiff had not performed the contract according to specifications and was therefore not entitled to recover the suit amount. A plea that, if proved, would extinguish the plaintiff's claim altogether is a defence in diminution or negation of liability, not a set-off.

Conclusion: The plea was a defence and not a set-off, and no court fee was payable on the written statement.

---