The difficulty put earlier than the courtroom was what constitutes financial duress, and whether or not such duress can come up the place lawful acts or threats are made by one celebration in help of a requirement which that celebration genuinely believes it’s entitled to make.
The case was heard by President of the Supreme Court docket Lord Reed, Deputy president Lord Hodge, in addition to Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Kitchin and Lord Burrows. The hearings befell on November 2 and three final 12 months, with the judgement delivered on August 18 (right now).
In line with a abstract shared by the courtroom, PIA had entered right into a contract with the appellant, Occasions Journey (UK), pursuant to which Occasions Journey acted as a ticketing agent to PIAC.
Occasions Journey was a small family-owned journey company whose enterprise was largely depending on its potential to promote PIAC’s tickets. By 2012, numerous PIAC’s ticketing brokers had both commenced or threatened proceedings to get well substantial sums they mentioned PIAC owed to them by the use of fee.
In September 2012, PIAC gave lawful discover of the termination of its current company contracts and provided Occasions Journey a brand new contract.
The brand new contract contained a waiver by Occasions Journey of its claims for unpaid fee below the prior preparations. Occasions Journey accepted and signed the brand new contract.
In 2014, Occasions Journey initiated proceedings to get well unpaid fee and different funds which it mentioned have been as a consequence of it below the prior contractual preparations.
At first occasion, the Excessive Court docket held that Occasions Journey was entitled to keep away from the contract with PIAC on the grounds of financial duress.
The Court docket of Enchantment had allowed PIAC’s enchantment. Occasions Journey then appealed to the Supreme Court docket, which dominated in favour of PIA.