Product Detail

CLQ Vol36 No2 June-August 2022

Pleading causation
By Justice John K Bond
 
The purpose of this paper is to develop some thoughts as to the principles which should inform the proper pleading of a causation hypothesis, with a view to assisting pleaders to avoid some common problems.
 
 
Pakistan International Airline Corporation v Times Travel (UK) Ltddelineating the boundaries of lawful act economic duress
By Natalie Silver
 
Is the doctrine of economic duress limited to unlawful threats, or can it include a threat to do something lawful? This was the vexed question raised in the recent case of Pakistan International Airline Corporation v Times Travel (UK) Ltd, where the UK Supreme Court considered the boundaries of the doctrine of lawful act economic duress. This decision has important implications for Australia given it remains an open question whether the scope of the doctrine of economic duress is limited to cases involving threatened conduct which is unlawful. Courts have wrestled with this issue and are particularly concerned with judicial overreach in the commercial realm. As Lord Burrows explains in PIAC v Times Travel: ‘Lawful act duress is controversial … because many contracts are entered into under some form of pressure exerted by the other party and, plainly, one would not wish to undermine all such contracts.’
 
 
Asset-based loans and unconscionable conduct: the High Court’s decision in Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6
By Harrison Simons
 
The facts of the decision, and the finding by the Court of Appeal that the lenders did not have knowledge of the borrower’s financial vulnerability, made the case an appropriate vehicle to clarify and develop the scope of statutory unconscionability under s12CB of the ASIC Act. This was especially in light of the High Court’s earlier decision in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Kobelt (2019) 267 CLR 1 in which the court left open the possibility that statutory unconscionability could be established without needing to prove that a plaintiff suffered from, and the defendant took advantage of, a special disadvantage or vulnerability. Nevertheless, the joint judgment of the High Court in Stubbings avoided these larger issues by allowing the borrower’s appeal on the conventional principles of unconscionable conduct in equity. As will be seen, the joint judgment was able to resolve the matter on narrow grounds by restoring a critical finding of fact by the primary judge concerning the respondents’ knowledge which was overturned by the Court of Appeal. The narrow basis of the joint judgment’s reasons is unlikely to be satisfactory to those commercial lawyers who seek clarity as to the permissible bounds of asset-based lending.
 
 
Contract law master class 2022: Part two
by Jeffrey Goldberger

Chapter 3. Estoppel by convention revisited
Chapter 4. The nature of a claim under an indemnity
Chapter 5. The incorporation of terms by reference
Chapter 6. Privity of contract: an old principle with new perspectives

  • Pleading causation
    By Justice John K Bond
    page 4
  • Pakistan International Airline Corporation v Times Travel (UK) Ltd: delineating the boundaries of lawful act economic duress
    By Natalie Silver
    page 10
  • Asset-based loans and unconscionable conduct: the High Court’s decision in Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6
    By Harrison Simons
    page 13
  • Contract law master class 2022. Part two
    By Jeffrey Goldberger
    page 18
  • Member Price: $0.00
    Non Member Price: $30.00
     
    Main File Type pdf
    © Copyright 2022 Commercial Law Association of Australia (CLA) |  Site by ICAN Solutions