The Possibility of Lawful Act Economic Duress: Pakistan International Airlines Corp v Times Travel (UK) Ltd

The voidability of a contract procured by ‘economic duress’ is now well-established, but the precise boundaries of the doctrine remain contested. In Pakistan International Airlines Corp v Times Travel (UK) Ltd [2021] UKSC 40, the Supreme Court confronted the longstanding controversy as to whether a threat to perform a lawful act can provide grounds for a threatened party to avoid a contract for economic duress. This note argues that the Court's decision to affirm the existence of ‘lawful act duress’ is welcome. It is further argued that the specific kind of lawful act duress identified by the majority and relevant to determining the appeal, described as ‘deliberate maneuvering via illegitimate means’, provides helpful (and defensible) clarification of the content of this doctrine, and that the Court was correct to hold that the contract in Times Travel was not voidable on this basis.     

‘Supportive Parenting’, Responsibility and Regulation: The Welfare Assessment under the Reformed Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (1990)

Section 13(5) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 requires fertility clinics, before offering regulated treatment services, to take account of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment and any other child affected by that birth. This paper presents the findings of an empirical study examining the impact on practice of the controversial reform of this section in 2008. While the broad values underpinning section 13(5) appear well embedded in clinic staff's engagement with ethical issues, there is little evidence that practice has been influenced by the 2008 amendments. A complex picture emerged regarding the implementation of section 13(5), particularly in its interaction with other factors, such as funding criteria and professional norms around counselling, implying a higher level of ongoing attention to likely parenting ability – particularly that of single women – than might be expected from a reading of the statute and guidance alone.     

Respect response to Dixon et al. (2012) ‘Perpetrator programmes for partner violence: Are they based on ideology or evidence?’

Purpose. This article is a commentary on Dixon, Archer, & Graham‐Kevan's (2012) critique of the Respect position statement on gender, which concluded by calling for abandoning either Respect or the Respect accreditation system. Methods. The article starts by providing some factual information about Respect and about the accreditation system mentioned in Dixon et al. It then picks up on five specific aspects of the discussion: research notions, prevalence, homicide, the relevance of gender to work on intimate partner violence, and our work to support male victims. Results. Dixon et al. critique one document in order to call for the abandonment of a system of accreditation which is not connected to that document. Dixon et al. ignored other relevant research (such as that on partner homicide) and practice evidence that contradicts their assertions. This includes ignoring the existence of Respect's work with male victims, including running the male victims helpline. Conclusions. Respect work is informed by knowledge and experience from research and practice. There is substantial evidence from research to support the position statement on gender. The accreditation standard and system of accreditation was established before the position statement was written and is not included. Respect provides valuable services for male victims and for male and female perpetrators.     

The FSA's ‘Treating Customers Fairly’ (TCF) Initiative: What is So Good About It and Why It May Not Work

This article examines the Financial Services Authority FSA's ‘Treating Customers Fairly’ (TCF) initiative as a case study of a regulatory strategy that aims to stimulate the self‐regulatory capacity of the regulated population to advance socially desirable goals – in this particular case, fair treatment for customers. It considers the development and nature of TCF and notes some difficulties that jeopardize its overall effectiveness. Parts one and two of the article consider the development and nature of TCF, while part three examines its appeal. Part four provides an overview of some problematic aspects of the FSA's initiative. The conclusion draws together the main threads of the analysis and considers the future of TCF and, more generally, consumer protection in the United Kingdom's system of financial regulation. The aim is to make a modest contribution to the debate about the proper direction of the present reform of financial regulation.