Barton v Armstrong - Case Summary PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Summary...

Description

Barton v Armstrong [1973] 2 NSWLR 598 Introduction Issue: Did A’s threats constitute illegitimate pressure such as to void LC’s promises to pay A? Issue: What has to be decided is whether the illegitimate means used was (unless the case is one of automatism which this is not) a conscious reason so that the complainant can give evidence “I acted because I was forced”? Facts      

Armstrong threatens Barton with death B replaces A as director of Landmark Corporation after a ‘boardroom struggle’ A is owed $400 000 by LC LC makes promises to A about payment, but becomes insolvent B brings an action seeking to resolve the debts owed to A in his favour A threatens to kill B if he does not receive payment, hiring a hit man and making other illegitimate (unlawful) threats upon his person.

Outcome Majority [Lord Cross of Chelsea, Lord Kilbrandon, Sir Garfield Barwick]: Appeal should be allowed and a declaration made that the deed was executed by Barton under duress and is void so far as concerns him. During the 10 days or so before the documents were executed Barton was in genuine fear. He believed that his fears would be at an end once the documents were executed. It is true that the judge was not satisfied that Vojinovic had been employed by Armstrong but if one man threatens another, he must take the risk that the impact of his threats may be accentuated by extraneous circumstances. It is true that Armstrong’s threats may have been unnecessary; but it would be unrealistic to hold that they played no part in making Barton decide to execute the documents. Reasons for Deciding The pressure was clearly unlawful (threats to kill and cause harm, apparently in the process of being carried out) and the duress was actionable. Rules / Gems / Quotable Quotes 

The first step required of the plaintiff is to show that some illegitimate means of persuasion was used. That there were threats to Barton’s life was found by the judge.



The next necessary step would be to establish the relationship between the illegitimate means and the action. We accept the test proposed by the majority, namely, that the illegitimate means used was a reason (not the reason, nor the predominant reason nor the clinching reason) why the complainant acted as he did.

Barton v Armstrong [1973] 2 NSWLR 598...