Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104, [1975] 2 A PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Summary...

Description

1

Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104, [1975] 2 All ER 465, [1975] 2 WLR 1050, 119 Sol Jo 286, 3 ALR 355, [1973] 2 NSWLR 598 Court: PC Judgment Date: circa 1976

Catchwords & Digest CONTRACT - FORMATION OF CONTRACT - CONSENT - DURESS - WHAT CONSTITUTES - OTHER CASES - THREAT OF VIOLENCE In a suit brought by B against A and others seeking a declaration that certain deeds were void as having been executed under duress exerted by A, the Supreme Court of NSW found on the one hand that A was a totally unreliable witness, that on many occasions he had threatened B with death, that B was justified in taking and did take these threats seriously, but on the other hand that though B was, during the relevant period in consequent real fear, the threats did not in fact coerce him to enter into the agreement contained in the deeds, which went through for 'sheer commercial necessity'. B's appeal from the dismissal of the suit was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on the ground that he had not established that but for the threats he would not have executed the deeds. B appealed by leave of the Supreme Court to the Privy Council: Held (Lord Wilberforce and Lord Simon of Glaisdale dissenting), (1) (a) duress or undue influence is established against a party to a transaction where the threats he made or the pressure he exerted against the other provided that person with 'a' reason for entering into the transaction; (b) the onus is on the actor to establish that the threats he made or the pressure he exerted in fact contributed nothing to the decision of the person at whom his conduct was directed to enter into the transaction; (2) the proper inference to be drawn from the facts as found by the trial judge and modified by the Court of Appeal was that although it may be that B could have executed the deeds even if A had made no threats and exerted no unlawful pressure to induce him to do so, the threats and unlawful pressure in fact contributed to his decision. Accordingly (3) the appeal should be allowed and a declaration made that the deeds in question were executed by B under duress and were void so far as concerned him....