Huyton S.A. v Peter Cremer G.m.b.H. & Company

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date1999
Date1999
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
29 cases
  • Pakistan International Airline Corporation v Times Travel (UK) Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 Enero 2021
    ...(UK) Ltd [2007] EWHC 3481 (QB), CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallaher Ltd [1994] 4 All ER 714, Huyton SA v Peter Cremer GmbH & Co [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 620 and Thorne v Motor Trade Association [1937] AC 797. It focuses wrongly on the state of mind of the coercer and has nothing to do with whethe......
  • Sheikh Tahnoon Bin Saeed Bin Shakhboot Al Nehayan v Ioannis Kent (Aka John Kent)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 22 Febrero 2018
    ...(at 46) said that “[p]ressure will be illegitimate if it consists of unlawful threats or amounts to unconscionable conduct”. In Huyton SA v Peter Cremer GmbH & Co [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep 620, 637–8; [1999] CLC 230, 250–2, Mance J (as he was) cited these authorities and identified the rational......
  • Oliver Dean Morley t/a Morley Estates v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 27 Enero 2020
    ...v. International Transport Workers' Federation [1991] 2 AC 152, 165; as explained by Mance J (as he then was) in Huyton v. Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyds Rep 620, 636, setting as a minimum a “but for” test whereby the illegitimate pressure must have “actually caused” the making of, or the terms of......
  • Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd v Tube City Ims LLC
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 17 Febrero 2012
    ...terms of the question of law posed for the court). The one authority to which reference was made by the Arbitrators in their reasons is Huyton v Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyds Rep 620, a decision of Mance J (as he then was) in which he set out the requirements for economic duress, at page 630 he sa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • THE USE AND ABUSE OF ANTI-ARBITRATION INJUNCTIONS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2013, December 2013
    • 1 Diciembre 2013
    ...Com Cas 116. 20Malmesbury Railway Co v Budd(1876) 2 Ch D 113; Beddow v Beddow(1878) 9 Ch D 89. 21Huyton SA v Peter Cremer GmbH & Co[1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep 620 at 623 and 642. 22Compagnie Européenne de Céréales SA v Tradax Export SA[1986] 2 Lloyd's Rep 301 at 305–306. 23Claxton Engineering Serv......
  • Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. C.G. Berbatis Holdings Pty. Ltd.; curbing unconscionability: Berbatis in the High Court of Australia.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 28 No. 1, April - April 2004
    • 1 Abril 2004
    ...also to be finding its way into modern English decisions on the duress doctrine: see, eg, Huyton SA v Peter Cremer GmbH & Co [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep 620, 637 (Mance (120) See, eg, Equiticorp Finance Ltd (in liq) v Bank of New Zealand (1993) 32 NSWLR 50, 107. In that case, Kirby P saw wisdo......
  • VITIATING FACTORS IN CONTRACT LAW — SOME KEY CONCEPTS AND DEVELOPMENTS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2005, December 2005
    • 1 Diciembre 2005
    ...which problem has now been settled by the case law: see generally Phang, supra n 1, at 34—35, and the literature cited therein. 178 [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 620. 179 See the Australian Privy Council decision of Barton v Armstrong[1976] AC 104. 180 Supra n 178 at 636. 181 See the English Court o......
  • EQUITY AND OPPORTUNISM IN THE LAW OF CONTRACT:
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2018, December 2018
    • 1 Diciembre 2018
    ...p 324. 102 Mindy Chen-Wishart, Contract Law (Oxford University Press, 5th Ed, 2015) at p 337. 103Huyton SA v Peter Cremer GmbH & Co[1999] 1 Lloyds Rep 620 at 636. 104Universe Tankships, Inc of Monrovia v International Transport Workers Federation[1983] 1 AC 366 at 400. 105Huyton SA v Peter ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT