Commercial Update: Lawful economic duress and reasonableness – an analysis by Christopher Edwards
24th May 2019
Commercial barrister Christopher Edwards analyses the Court of Appeal decision in Times Travel (UK) v Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and its impact on the criteria of lawful economic duress and reasonableness in commercial contracts.
Related News
-
Mark Wilden - 3PB's music, entertainment and intellectual property barrister - has been interviewed for the BBC's Introducing in Oxfordshire & Berkshire programme about legal issues for musicians and artists at the start of their careers. Mark, who was a local musician himself, answers questions from fellow musician Hannah about songwriters and musicians' rights in her "How To... keep it legal” segment on this popular radio show. To listen to these interviews, please click here...
Continue reading -
3PB's commercial litigation barrister Makhsudul Islam (pictured here) acted for the defendant who was pursued by his former solicitors for recovery of its unpaid legal fees, following an alleged breach of contract. The High Court in Birmingham has now confirmed in GT Stewart Limited v Mr Paul Oliver Taylor that a claimant who settled a claim in its favour was not automatically entitled to its costs by virtue of CPR 44.2(2)(a). Further to a dispute...
Continue reading -
Rebecca Farrell, specialist commercial and insolvency barrister at 3PB Barristers (3 Paper Buildings), has written an article exploring three recent Insolvency Appeals and their potential impact. In her article, Rebecca addresses the Supreme Court decision in El Husseiny v Invest Bank PSC [2025] UKSC 4 which was handed down last week. This Appeal concerned the interpretation of Section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“the Insolvency Act”). In its analysis the Supreme Court supported a...
Continue reading -
3PB Barristers’ (3 Paper Buildings) specialist commercial, chancery and property barrister Alexander Whatley has written for LexisNexis on the case of R v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, which was brought to the Supreme Court to determine the correct characterisation of a contract. In his article, entitled “Amendments in retrospect – Repair or replace? (R v Revenue and Customs Commissioners)”, Alexander explores the legal distinctions between amendment, rescission and replacement, the relevant contextual considerations for the courts and...
Continue reading
