UK: Economic Duress – How Far Is Too Far?

Last Updated: 19 June 2019
Article by Susan Rosser and Tom Wild


What options are available to a party which finds itself pressured to enter into a contract? 

It might be possible to undo the agreement on the basis that it was reached under duress -  even, in principle, where the pressure consisted of a threat to do something lawful.

However, most, perhaps all, commercial negotiations will be carried out under some degree of pressure, and sometimes overwhelming pressure.  This raises a question for negotiating parties: in pressing home a strong bargaining position, how far is too far?

The answer is that a threat to carry out a lawful act goes too far when it is made 'illegitimately'.  As we reported here, in his 2012 judgment in Progress Bulk Carriers1, Cooke J held that 'illegitimate' in this context means 'morally or socially unacceptable'.

This open-textured test has been clarified and restricted in a recent Court of Appeal judgment2.  Where the threats or acts in question are lawful, the doctrine will only apply when the party in question acts in bad faith.  This appears to set a high bar indeed for parties seeking to rely on lawful acts as grounds for an economic duress case.

The dispute

Times Travel (UK) Limited (the "Agency") is a small family business which sells tours to Pakistan.  Its business depends upon an agency agreement with Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (the "Airline"), which was at the relevant time the sole operator of direct flights between the UK and Pakistan.

The Agency and the Airline traded under an agency agreement from around 2008.  That agreement provided for the Airline to pay a flat rate of commission on sales by the Agency, with a bonus payable depending on total sales.  The Agency claimed that the Airline owed it unpaid commission in respect of sales between 2009 and 2012.

Between 2011 and 2012 some 30 different travel agents brought claims against the Airline for unpaid commission under similar agreements.

In 2012, the Airline served notice on the Agency terminating the agency agreement.  The Airline simultaneously reduced the Agency's allocated stock of tickets by 80%.  This put the Agency under immense strain.

Enclosed with the notice of termination was an offer to enter into a new agency agreement.  The Airline indicated that once this was signed, the Agency's ticket allocation would increase.  The catch was that, as a condition of the new agreement, the Agency had to waive its claims for unpaid commission.  Otherwise, the agreement was substantially the same as before.

The Agency accepted the new terms and, shortly later, its ticket allocation was restored in full.

A number of other agencies declined the new offer and persisted with their claims for unpaid commission, securing a settlement under which additional commission would be paid on future sales.

When, in December 2013, the Agency requested a similar bonus structure, the Airline declined.  The Agency then commenced its own claim for unpaid commission but, in order to succeed, it needed to avoid the waiver in the new agreement.  It sought to do so on the ground of economic duress.

The law

A claim of economic duress has three elements.  First, the pressure applied to one party must have been illegitimate.  This is usually the case when the pressure consists of a threat of unlawful action, although the fact that a threat is lawful does not necessarily make the pressure legitimate. 

The Court will assess the legitimacy of pressure against a range of factors: in particular whether there has been an actual or threatened breach of contract and whether the person exerting the pressure has acted in bad faith.

The pressure must have influenced the victim's decision to enter into the contract, and the practical effect of the pressure must have been a lack of practical choice for the claimant. The Court will examine whether the victim had any realistic practical alternative, whether the victim protested at the time, and whether the victim subsequently affirmed the contract.

The Courts have been eager to distinguish illegitimate pressure from "the rough and tumble of the pressures of normal commercial bargaining".

The first instance judgment – bad faith not a necessary component

At first instance Warren J sided with the Agency.  In finding that the Airline had acted illegitimately, the judge relied upon the strength (as he saw it) of the Agency's claim for historic commission, the fact that the Airline's actions appeared calculated to ensure that the Agency lost its claim to accrued rights, and the fact that the Agency was a longstanding and honest commercial partner which was given no adequate period of notice which might allow it to adjust its business.  

The Agency did not establish that the Airline had acted in bad faith, but Warren J held that this did not matter.

Reversal by the Court of Appeal

The first instance judgment was reversed unanimously.  

The Court of Appeal's reasoning had two principal strands, one general and the other more specific to the case at hand.

The general proposition is that "the doctrine of lawful act duress does not extend to the use of lawful pressure to achieve a result to which the person exercising pressure believes in good faith it is entitled, and that is so whether or not, objectively speaking, it has reasonable grounds for that belief."  What is required is "deliberate wrongdoing in the sense of pursuing claims known to be invalid".

In other words, where the party's means are lawful, there has to be something illegitimate about the intended end in order to engage the doctrine – and that means an end pursued in bad faith.

Here, it was common ground that the Airline was entitled to terminate the old contract and reduce the Agency's ticket allocation.  The judge had not found that the Airline lacked a genuine belief in its right to reject the Agency's claims for commission.  Accordingly, the Airline's means and intended result were both legitimate, and the new agreement stood. 

The second strand of the Court's reasoning was that the strength of the Airline's negotiating position derived from its position as a monopoly provider.  As a matter of policy, the restraint of monopoly power is regulated by statute (i.e. by competition law) and not by the common law.


The Court of Appeal's judgment sets a high bar – perhaps prohibitively high - for parties seeking to establish lawful act economic duress.

The party seeking to avoid the agreement bears the burden of proof.  It must show on the balance of probabilities that the other party did not, in good faith, consider that it was entitled to the result it sought to achieve.  Even if the other party had no reasonable grounds for believing itself to be entitled to that result, this will not necessarily be enough to clear that evidential hurdle.

English law regards it as paramount that contractual obligations are kept. This judgment is directed towards this ideal.  In most circumstances, a party which has struck a hard bargain will not need to worry that it may be undone by the Courts.

Scope for further challenge?

There is perhaps scope to query the way the Court of Appeal casts the test for bad faith in Times Travel.

The test applied by the Court of Appeal appears to be wholly subjective – what was required was a factual finding that the Airline "lacked a genuine belief in its right to reject [the Agency's] claims". 

This may sit uneasily with the authorities construing the words "made in bad faith" in the Trade Marks Act 1994.  In the 2004 judgment in Harrison v Teton Valley Trading Co Ltd3, the Court of Appeal held that the test for bad faith in this context had both objective and subjective elements, mirroring those in the (then) test for dishonesty as set out in Twinsectra v Yardley.4

Matters are complicated further by the 2017 judgment in Ivey v Genting5, in which the Supreme Court held that in the context of dishonesty, Twinsectra is no longer good law. The test for dishonesty now involves a (factual) inquiry as to the party's knowledge as to the facts, followed by an inquiry as to whether its conduct was (objectively) honest given the state of its knowledge. In that context, whether the party in question had reasonable grounds for its (apparent) belief is likely to be determinative.

We can see the attraction of the Ivey test in the context of economic duress. There may be circumstances in which a party genuinely believes it is entitled to a particular result, in circumstances where an ordinary person in their shoes would consider that result to be morally or socially unacceptable. There is an argument that a party in that position should not benefit from its own lack of moral judgment.  

A similar line of argument was pursued unsuccessfully by the Agency, but the case law above appears not to have been cited to the Court of Appeal, so there may be scope to explore the test in future cases.  This argument would need to be balanced against the desire for certainty in commercial arrangements (and our expectation is that the latter would prevail).


Although the Agency is likely to feel aggrieved at having been backed into a corner by the Airline, the judgment is entirely consistent with English law's desire to ensure that contracts bind. The scope of lawful act economic duress has been narrowly confined, although the doctrine will continue to have a greater role where one party threatens to act unlawfully, for instance by breaching an existing contract.


1Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd v Tube City IMS LLC [2012] EWHC 273 (Comm)

2Times Travel (UK) Limited v Pakistan International Airlines Corporation [2019] EWCA Civ 828

3Harrison v Teton Valley Trading Co Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1028

4Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] UKHL 12

5Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd (t/a Crockfords Club) [2017] UKSC 67

Visit us at

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2019. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions