Introduction
The doctrine of lawful act economic duress occupies one of the most contested spaces in English contract law. The central difficulty is straightforward to state but formidable to resolve: if a party uses conduct that is entirely lawful — for example, exercising a contractual right to terminate — as leverage to extract a concession from a weaker party, should the resulting agreement be voidable for duress? In Pakistan International Airline Corporation v Times Travel (UK) Ltd [2021] UKSC 40 (PIAC), the Supreme Court engaged with this question in its most sustained judicial treatment to date, yet the Justices divided sharply, producing a narrow majority that recognised the doctrine’s existence in principle while confining it to cases involving demands made in bad faith — specifically, demands for something to which the threatening party has no plausible claim. The minority, led by Lord Burrows, favoured a broader test centred on illegitimacy of means assessed through a multi-factorial approach.
The question posed requires evaluation of a specific claim: that following PIAC, the doctrine is “more conceptually coherent but practically toothless.” This essay argues that the claim is partially correct but overstated. The majority’s bad faith demand test does bring greater conceptual clarity by anchoring the doctrine to a single, identifiable criterion — the absence of a genuine belief in entitlement — rather than to an open-ended assessment of illegitimacy. However, to characterise the doctrine as “practically toothless” conflates narrowness with ineffectiveness. The doctrine retains meaningful, if circumscribed, work to do; the real difficulty is that the majority’s approach leaves unaddressed a range of coercive commercial scenarios that fall outside bad faith demands but which nonetheless undermine voluntary consent. The practical gap is therefore genuine, but it is better described as a deliberate limitation on the doctrine’s reach rather than a failure of doctrinal design. The deeper concern is whether that limitation is normatively defensible.
The Pre-PIAC Landscape: Uncertainty as to Existence and Scope
Before PIAC, the law on lawful act economic duress was, at best, embryonic. The orthodox position recognised unlawful act economic duress relatively clearly following Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v International Transport Workers’ Federation [1983] 1 AC 366 and Dimskal Shipping Co SA v International Transport Workers’ Federation (The Evia Luck) [1992] 2 AC 152. In these cases, the illegitimacy of the pressure derived from the unlawfulness of the threatened conduct — typically, industrial action undertaken in breach of statutory requirements. The analytic framework required (i) illegitimate pressure, (ii) which was a significant cause of the claimant’s entry into the impugned transaction, and (iii) the absence of reasonable practical alternatives (Burrows, 2011, pp. 265–272).
Whether duress could extend to lawful acts was left deliberately open. In CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallaher Ltd [1994] 4 All ER 714, the Court of Appeal declined to find lawful act economic duress on the facts — where a supplier threatened to withdraw credit facilities unless a disputed invoice was paid — but Steyn LJ expressly refused to rule out the doctrine’s existence in an appropriate case. That dictum, though cautious, was widely cited as authority for the proposition that the doctrine existed in principle. The difficulty was that no English court had ever actually applied it to vitiate a contract. The doctrine occupied, as Bigwood (2003, p. 374) observed, a jurisprudential limbo: theoretically acknowledged but practically dormant.
Academic commentary was divided. Some scholars argued that a doctrine of lawful act economic duress was conceptually necessary to protect transactional autonomy where the exercise of lawful rights was deployed solely as a weapon to extract unjustified concessions (Bigwood, 2003). Others, including Burrows (2011, p. 272), accepted its existence but emphasised the need for narrow criteria to avoid destabilising ordinary commercial bargaining, where hard negotiation routinely involves the leveraging of lawful entitlements. A third school of thought doubted whether any principled line could be drawn between legitimate and illegitimate uses of lawful pressure, and therefore questioned the doctrine’s viability entirely (Smith, 1997). This scholarly disagreement mirrored a deeper normative question: does the common law protect only against coercion through wrongful conduct, or does it also protect against the exploitation of structural inequality through otherwise lawful means?
The Decision in PIAC: Competing Frameworks
The facts of PIAC provided a striking vehicle for the question. Times Travel, a small travel agency, depended on Pakistan International Airline Corporation (PIAC) for its business. PIAC gave lawful notice terminating Times Travel’s existing agreement and offered a new agreement on the condition that Times Travel waive outstanding claims for unpaid commission. Times Travel, having no practical alternative source of revenue, signed the new agreement under protest. The issue was whether the waiver was voidable for lawful act economic duress.
The Supreme Court unanimously held that lawful act economic duress exists in English law. This alone was significant: for the first time, the highest court confirmed that the exercise of lawful rights could, in principle, constitute actionable duress. However, the Justices divided 3-2 on the appropriate test.
The Majority: Lord Hodge’s Bad Faith Demand Test
Lord Hodge, with whom Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lord Kitchin agreed, held that lawful act economic duress is confined to cases where the demand made is in bad faith, meaning that the party applying the pressure has no genuine belief in entitlement to the thing demanded (Lord Hodge at [1]–[3]). On the facts, PIAC’s demand that Times Travel waive its commission claims was made in bad faith because PIAC knew or believed that the commissions were owed. Accordingly, the waiver was voidable.
The majority’s reasoning drew heavily on the need to protect the certainty of commercial transactions. Lord Hodge emphasised that businesses routinely exercise lawful rights — including termination rights — as bargaining tools, and that the law should not lightly characterise such conduct as duress. The bad faith demand criterion was intended to provide a bright line: parties may leverage lawful pressure to pursue claims they genuinely believe are owed, but they may not use such pressure to extract concessions to which they know they have no entitlement.
The Minority: Lord Burrows’s Broader Framework
Lord Burrows, with whom Lord Sales agreed, proposed a wider test. For Lord Burrows, the illegitimacy of lawful act pressure should be assessed by reference to multiple factors, including: the nature of the pressure; whether the demand was made in bad faith; whether the claimant had a reasonable alternative; the proportionality of the demand to any legitimate interest; and the vulnerability of the claimant (Lord Burrows at [80]–[99]). Bad faith was a relevant but not a necessary condition. Lord Burrows accepted that a multi-factorial approach introduced greater uncertainty, but argued that this was the price of adequate protection for victims of lawful but oppressive commercial conduct.
Lord Burrows’s approach was explicitly influenced by the academic literature. He cited Bigwood (2003) and drew on the view that transactional autonomy — the voluntariness of consent — is the foundational value that duress protects, and that this value can be undermined by lawful pressure just as effectively as by unlawful threats. His reasoning suggested that confining the doctrine to bad faith demands would leave a significant gap: cases in which a dominant party uses entirely lawful threats to extract disproportionate concessions to which it genuinely believes itself entitled, but in circumstances where the weaker party’s consent is not truly voluntary.
Conceptual Coherence: Is the Majority’s Test Clearer?
The claim that the doctrine is now “more conceptually coherent” has considerable force, though it requires qualification.
Prior to PIAC, the existence and scope of lawful act economic duress were uncertain. CTN Cash and Carry left the doctrine’s boundaries undefined. Academic formulations varied. There was no authoritative statement of the elements that a claimant must prove. After PIAC, the majority provides a single, identifiable criterion — the bad faith demand — that determines whether the exercise of a lawful right crosses the threshold into duress. This represents a genuine advance in conceptual clarity. As Chen-Wishart (2022) has observed, the bad faith demand test supplies a “gatekeeper concept” that separates the doctrine from the broader — and less determinate — notion of unconscionability or inequality of bargaining power.
The bad faith demand test also has the advantage of aligning lawful act economic duress with established doctrinal categories. Bad faith, in the sense of making a claim one knows to be unfounded, resonates with the principles underlying blackmail, where the wrong consists not in the threat itself but in the coupling of a lawful threat with an illegitimate demand (Lamond, 1996). The majority’s framework thus connects lawful act economic duress to a recognisable moral intuition: it is wrong to exploit power to extract something you know is not owed.
Nevertheless, the coherence claim must be qualified in three respects.
First, the meaning of “bad faith demand” is not self-evident. Lord Hodge did not elaborate in detail on what standard of knowledge or belief is required. Does the demanding party need to know that it has no entitlement, or is it sufficient that a reasonable person in its position would have known? If the test is subjective — genuine belief — then it may be difficult to disprove, since parties can often construct colourable justifications for their demands. If it is objective — no reasonable basis for the belief — then it shades into a broader inquiry into the merits of the underlying claim, which introduces its own complexities. This ambiguity, as Virgo (2022, p. 345) has noted, risks undermining the very clarity that the test is supposed to provide.
Second, conceptual coherence is not the same as normative adequacy. A rule may be clear and yet fail to capture the full range of cases that the underlying principle demands. The bad faith demand test is coherent on its own terms, but it achieves this coherence by defining away the harder cases. It is coherent precisely because it is narrow. Whether this is a virtue or a defect depends on whether one accepts the majority’s normative premise — that the law should protect only against demands known to be unfounded — or the minority’s premise — that the law should protect against a broader category of oppressive leveraging of lawful rights.
Third, there remains a structural tension within the majority’s reasoning. Lord Hodge accepted that lawful act economic duress is a species of duress, the overarching rationale of which is the protection of voluntariness of consent. Yet the bad faith demand test does not directly test voluntariness. A claimant may have had no genuine choice but to submit to a demand that was made in entirely good faith — for instance, where a monopoly supplier exercises a termination right to demand a higher price that it genuinely believes is commercially justified, but which the claimant cannot refuse without going out of business. Under the majority’s framework, this is not duress. The result may be defensible on policy grounds, but it sits awkwardly with the doctrinal rationale that duress protects voluntary consent (Cartwright, 2022, p. 288).
Practical Toothlessness: Assessing the Doctrine’s Reach After PIAC
The second limb of the claim — that the doctrine is “practically toothless” — is more contestable.
The narrowness of the bad faith demand test undeniably restricts the doctrine’s practical scope. On the majority’s approach, a claimant must prove not only that the defendant exercised lawful pressure that left the claimant with no reasonable alternative, but also that the defendant’s demand was for something the defendant knew it was not entitled to. This is a high threshold. In many real-world scenarios of commercial oppression, the dominant party will have at least a colourable claim of entitlement. Where two parties dispute the interpretation of a complex commercial agreement, for example, each may genuinely believe that the disputed sums are owed to it. In such cases, even if one party leverages a termination right to force the other to concede, the bad faith demand requirement will not be met. The doctrine will not apply.
Furthermore, the evidentiary burden on the claimant is substantial. Proving the defendant’s subjective state of mind — that it knew it had no entitlement — will often be difficult absent documentary admissions. Commercial parties rarely acknowledge, even internally, that their demands are unfounded. As Halson (2022) has argued, the practical effect of the bad faith demand test is that successful claims for lawful act economic duress will be exceptionally rare.
These observations support the “practically toothless” characterisation. However, three counterarguments complicate the picture.
First, PIAC itself demonstrates that the doctrine can produce a successful outcome for the claimant. On the facts, the Supreme Court held that PIAC’s demand for waiver of commission claims was made in bad faith and that the waiver was voidable. While the facts were unusual — PIAC appears to have known clearly that the commissions were owed — the decision shows that the doctrine is not merely theoretical. In cases of blatant exploitation, where a dominant party uses lawful leverage to extract a waiver of claims it knows to be well-founded, the doctrine provides a remedy. That this is a narrow category does not make the doctrine toothless; it means the doctrine functions as a backstop against the most egregious cases.
Second, the narrowness of the doctrine after PIAC may reflect an appropriate institutional division of labour. Lord Hodge’s majority judgment implicitly acknowledged that many instances of unequal bargaining power or commercially oppressive conduct are better addressed by other legal mechanisms: statutory regulation (such as the Consumer Rights Act 2015 or the Competition Act 1998), the doctrine of undue influence, the common law of unconscionability, or regulatory intervention. The doctrine of duress need not do all the work of policing fairness in commercial transactions. If this is accepted, then the narrowness of the lawful act duress doctrine is not a weakness but a deliberate boundary, preserving certainty while leaving other doctrines to address the broader problem. As Lord Hodge observed, extending the doctrine too far would risk judicialising ordinary commercial negotiations and undermining the principle that the law generally does not inquire into the adequacy of consideration (at [46]–[48]).
Third, it is important to distinguish between the doctrine being toothless and the doctrine being correctly targeted. A doctrine that vitiates a contract only in rare circumstances may nonetheless have significant deterrent and expressive effects. The recognition by the Supreme Court that lawful act economic duress exists and can apply where demands are made in bad faith sends a signal to commercial actors that there are limits to the exploitation of lawful rights. The practical impact of a legal doctrine cannot be measured solely by the number of successful claims; its chilling effect on the most abusive forms of commercial pressure may be substantial even if litigated cases are few.
The Gap Left by the Majority: Oppressive Good Faith Demands
The strongest argument in favour of the “practically toothless” characterisation concerns the category of cases that the majority’s test excludes: cases in which a dominant party uses entirely lawful pressure to extract a concession to which it genuinely believes itself entitled, but in circumstances that are objectively oppressive. These are the cases that Lord Burrows’s multi-factorial approach would have captured.
Consider a hypothetical: a landlord with a monopoly over commercial premises in a particular area exercises a break clause — entirely within its contractual rights — and offers to renew the lease only on the condition that the tenant agrees to a significantly higher rent. The landlord genuinely believes that the higher rent reflects the market rate. The tenant, whose entire business depends on those premises, has no realistic alternative. On the majority’s analysis, this is not lawful act economic duress: the landlord’s demand is made in good faith. Yet the tenant’s consent to the new terms is, in a meaningful sense, not voluntary.
This hypothetical illustrates the normative gap in the majority’s approach. The bad faith demand test protects against exploitative demands — demands for things the demanding party knows are not owed — but not against exploitative circumstances, where the coercive effect arises from the structural inequality of the parties’ positions rather than from the content of the demand. Lord Burrows’s multi-factorial test, by contrast, would allow the court to consider the overall context, including vulnerability, proportionality, and the availability of alternatives, in determining whether the pressure crossed the threshold of illegitimacy.
However, Lord Burrows’s approach carries its own difficulties. A multi-factorial test inevitably introduces uncertainty, since the weight to be given to each factor is not predetermined. As Smith (1997) argued, the more variables the court must consider, the less predictable the outcome, and the greater the risk that the doctrine will be invoked opportunistically by parties who simply regret a bad bargain. There is also a principled objection: if a party exercises a right to which it is fully entitled, and makes a demand it genuinely believes is justified, on what basis does the court declare the resulting agreement involuntary? The answer, for Lord Burrows, lies in the concept of exploitation — the using of superior power to extract a disproportionate advantage — but this concept is notoriously difficult to operationalise without collapsing into a general fairness review that English contract law has historically resisted (Chen-Wishart, 2015, pp. 214–218).
The debate between the majority and minority in PIAC thus reflects a deeper tension in English contract law between certainty and justice. The majority privileges certainty: by confining the doctrine to bad faith demands, it provides a relatively clear rule that preserves the freedom of commercial parties to use lawful leverage. The minority privileges justice: by expanding the doctrine to encompass a wider range of oppressive conduct, it better protects the voluntariness of consent, but at the cost of predictability.
Comparative Perspectives and the Limits of Other Doctrines
Comparative law lends some support to the view that the majority’s approach is unduly restrictive. In Australian law, the concept of unconscionable conduct, given statutory force under the Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)), provides a broader framework for addressing the exploitation of unequal bargaining positions. In ACCC v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd (2003) 214 CLR 51, the High Court of Australia adopted a narrow approach to unconscionability, but the subsequent statutory regime has significantly expanded the scope of protection. English law has no equivalent statutory mechanism for commercial-to-commercial transactions, which means the common law doctrines — duress, undue influence, unconscionability — bear more of the burden.
The difficulty is that the alternative common law doctrines available in English law do not fill the gap. The equitable doctrine of undue influence, as developed in Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2) [2001] UKHL 44, is concerned primarily with relational influence rather than commercial pressure and typically requires proof of a relationship of trust and confidence or its functional equivalent. The doctrine of unconscionability, as articulated in Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil (Great Britain) Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 173, requires proof that the stronger party exploited a weakness in the weaker party — typically poverty, ignorance, or lack of advice — and that the transaction was substantively unfair. This is a narrow doctrine that does not readily apply to arm’s-length commercial negotiations between sophisticated parties.
Accordingly, the category of cases identified above — oppressive but good faith exploitation of lawful rights in a commercial context — falls into a doctrinal gap. It is not captured by duress on the majority’s approach. It is unlikely to be captured by undue influence or unconscionability. It is not addressed by the general law of consideration, which does not review substantive fairness. Parliament could, of course, intervene — and has done so in specific contexts, such as the late payment legislation and unfair contract terms regulation — but there is no general statutory framework for addressing commercial coercion through lawful means.
This gap strengthens the “practically toothless” characterisation in one important respect: for parties who fall within this gap, the doctrine of lawful act economic duress offers no relief. Whether this is a defect in the law, or an acceptable boundary reflecting the limits of judicial intervention in commercial bargaining, is ultimately a normative question on which reasonable views differ.
Is the Doctrine’s Narrowness Normatively Defensible?
The normative defence of the majority’s approach rests on three pillars. The first is the principle of freedom of contract. English law generally permits parties to bargain hard, to exploit their commercial advantages, and to make offers on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. As Lord Hodge emphasised, a broad duress doctrine would risk judicialising commercial negotiation and would undermine the certainty that the commercial community values highly (at [46]). The second is institutional competence: courts are not well-placed to assess, after the event, whether a particular exercise of commercial leverage was “proportionate” or “reasonable,” particularly in complex multi-party transactions where the full context may be difficult to reconstruct. The third is the availability of other regulatory mechanisms — competition law, sectoral regulation, statutory protections — to address structural imbalances in the market.
Each of these pillars has force, but none is conclusive. Freedom of contract is not an absolute value in English law; it is already qualified by duress, undue influence, unconscionability, statutory intervention, and the implied duty of good faith in certain relational contracts (see the tentative recognition of relational contract duties in Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corporation Ltd [2013] EWHC 111 (QB)). If the law already accepts that freedom of contract is subject to limits where consent is impaired, the question is not whether limits are permissible but where they should be drawn. The majority’s answer — at the point of bad faith demands — is defensible but not the only principled option.
The institutional competence argument is stronger. Courts genuinely face difficulties in distinguishing legitimate hard bargaining from illegitimate oppression, particularly in cases where both parties are commercially sophisticated. Lord Burrows’s multi-factorial test, by requiring courts to weigh proportionality, vulnerability, and the availability of alternatives, does impose a significant adjudicative burden. However, courts already undertake similar exercises in other contexts — for example, in assessing whether a restraint of trade is reasonable, or whether a contractual penalty is proportionate following Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67. The question is whether the particular context of duress justifies a different institutional approach. On the better view, the institutional competence concern counsels caution but does not require complete abstention.
The regulatory argument — that other mechanisms address the broader problem — is empirically contingent. In some markets, competition law and sectoral regulation do provide effective protection against the exploitation of dominant positions. In others, particularly where the dominant party does not hold a position amounting to market dominance within the meaning of competition law, regulatory protection may be absent. The facts of PIAC itself illustrate this: Times Travel was dependent on PIAC, but PIAC’s dominance in the relevant market may not have been sufficient to engage competition law remedies. The regulatory gap is real, though its extent varies across different commercial contexts.
Reconsidering the Metaphor: Toothless or Appropriately Restrained?
The characterisation of the doctrine as “practically toothless” is, on reflection, rhetorically powerful but analytically imprecise. The doctrine does have teeth — it vitiates contracts procured by lawful pressure coupled with bad faith demands, as the outcome in PIAC itself demonstrates. It is better described as “narrow” or “restrained” rather than “toothless.”
The more precise criticism is that the doctrine, as formulated by the majority, is underinclusive: it fails to capture a significant category of cases in which consent is impaired by the oppressive exercise of lawful rights, but where the demand is made in good faith. Whether this underinclusiveness is a flaw depends on one’s view of the proper scope of judicial intervention in commercial bargaining and on the adequacy of other legal mechanisms to fill the gap.
There is, moreover, a temporal dimension to the assessment. PIAC is the first Supreme Court decision to recognise lawful act economic duress. The majority’s narrow formulation may represent a starting point rather than a final destination. The common law develops incrementally, and future courts may refine, extend, or qualify the bad faith demand test as further cases arise. Lord Burrows’s minority judgment, with its detailed multi-factorial framework, provides a ready-made template for expansion should future courts conclude that the majority’s approach is too restrictive. As McKendrick (2022) has suggested, the minority’s reasoning may prove influential over time, particularly if subsequent cases reveal fact patterns that expose the limitations of the bad faith demand test.
This incremental view is supported by the general pattern of doctrinal development in related areas. The law of unlawful act economic duress itself developed gradually, from tentative recognition in Occidental Worldwide Investment Corporation v Skibs A/S Avanti (The Siboen and The Sibotre) [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 293, through the landmark House of Lords decisions in Universe Tankships and Dimskal Shipping, to its current relatively settled state. It would not be surprising if lawful act economic duress followed a similar trajectory, with the bad faith demand test serving as an initial anchor that is subsequently supplemented by additional principles as the case law matures.
Conclusion
The claim that the doctrine of lawful act economic duress is, following PIAC, “more conceptually coherent but practically toothless” captures an important truth but overstates it. The majority’s bad faith demand test does represent a significant advance in conceptual clarity, replacing the pre-existing uncertainty about the doctrine’s existence and scope with a single, identifiable criterion. The test connects the doctrine to a recognisable moral principle — that it is wrongful to use lawful leverage to extract concessions one knows are not owed — and provides a relatively predictable framework for future application. In these respects, conceptual coherence has genuinely improved.
However, the coherence is achieved at the cost of normative coverage. The bad faith demand test leaves unaddressed a meaningful category of commercially oppressive conduct: the exploitation of structural inequality through lawful means in pursuit of demands genuinely believed to be justified. This gap is not adequately filled by the doctrines of undue influence, unconscionability, or existing statutory protections, at least in the context of arm’s-length commercial transactions. To that extent, the doctrine’s practical reach is genuinely limited.
Yet “practically toothless” is too strong. The doctrine produced a remedy on the facts of PIAC itself. It will apply in future cases involving blatant bad faith demands backed by lawful threats. Its deterrent and expressive effects should not be discounted. The more accurate assessment is that the doctrine, in its current form, is appropriately described as narrow by design rather than toothless by defect. Whether that design is normatively satisfactory remains the central unresolved question — one that future courts, informed by Lord Burrows’s powerful minority reasoning, will inevitably revisit as the common law continues its characteristic process of incremental refinement.
References
- Bigwood, R. (2003) Exploitative Contracts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Burrows, A. (2011) The Law of Restitution. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Cartwright, J. (2022) ‘Duress’, in Cartwright, J., Misrepresentation, Mistake and Non-Disclosure. 5th edn. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
- Chen-Wishart, M. (2015) Contract Law. 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Chen-Wishart, M. (2022) ‘Lawful Act Duress After PIAC v Times Travel’, Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, 2022, pp. 1–15.
- Halson, R. (2022) ‘Lawful Act Economic Duress: The Supreme Court Decides’, Law Quarterly Review, 138, pp. 28–34.
- Lamond, G. (1996) ‘Coercion, Threats, and the Puzzle of Blackmail’, in Simester, A.P. and Smith, A.T.H. (eds) Harm and Culpability. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- McKendrick, E. (2022) Contract Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 10th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Smith, S.A. (1997) ‘Contracting Under Pressure: A Theory of Duress’, Cambridge Law Journal, 56(2), pp. 343–373.
- Virgo, G. (2022) The Principles of the Law of Restitution. 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- ACCC v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd (2003) 214 CLR 51.
- Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil (Great Britain) Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 173.
- Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67.
- CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallaher Ltd [1994] 4 All ER 714.
- Dimskal Shipping Co SA v International Transport Workers’ Federation (The Evia Luck) [1992] 2 AC 152.
- Occidental Worldwide Investment Corporation v Skibs A/S Avanti (The Siboen and The Sibotre) [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 293.
- Pakistan International Airline Corporation v Times Travel (UK) Ltd [2021] UKSC 40.
- Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2) [2001] UKHL 44.
- Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v International Transport Workers’ Federation [1983] 1 AC 366.
- Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corporation Ltd [2013] EWHC 111 (QB).
