Legal News

Unconscionable bargains—lawful economic duress—penal provisions—summary judgment—strike out (Adare Finance DAC v Yellowstone Capital Management SA)

Unconscionable bargains—lawful economic duress—penal provisions—summary judgment—strike out (Adare Finance DAC v Yellowstone Capital Management SA)
Published on: 29 October 2020
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Unconscionable bargains—lawful economic duress—penal provisions—summary judgment—strike out (Adare Finance DAC v Yellowstone Capital Management SA)
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • What was the background?
  • What did the court decide?
  • Summary judgment and strike out
  • Unconscionable bargain
  • Economic duress
  • Unlawful penalties
  • Case details

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: A sophisticated commercial party acting with the benefit of legal advice could not properly plead serious disadvantage where there was no substantial inequality of bargaining. Further, a claim of lawful act economic duress was unsustainable where the party exerting the relevant pressure was acting lawfully in pursuit of a demand in good faith. Further, acceleration of payment provisions that merely required the payment of sums due at an earlier date and in line with the legitimate interest of the recipient party were not penal. The High Court so held in granting the claimant Adare Finance DAC (Adare) summary judgment in respect of its monetary claim for sums outstanding under financial agreements to which there was no justiciable defence against the defendants Yellowstone Capital Management (Yellowstone) and Michel Ohayon (Ohayon) and dismissing their defences and counterclaim. Written by Sandip Patel QC FCIArb, managing partner of Aliant, London. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents