''Barton v Armstrong'' is a

Privy Council A privy council is a body that advises the head of state of a state, typically, but not always, in the context of a monarchic government. The word "privy" means "private" or "secret"; thus, a privy council was originally a committee of the mo ...

decision heard on appeal from the Court of Appeal of New South Wales,. relating to

duress Coercion () is compelling a party to act in an involuntary manner by the use of threats, including threats to use force against a party. It involves a set of forceful actions which violate the free will of an individual in order to induce a desi ...

and pertinent to case law under Australian and

English contract law English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries ...

. The Privy Council held that a person who agrees to a contract under physical duress may avoid the contract, even if the duress was not the main reason for agreeing to the bargain.

Facts

Alexander Barton was the managing director of a company, Landmark Corporation Ltd., whose main business was property development, its projects passing through 'Paradise Waters (Sales) Pty Ltd'. Barton executed a deed whereby the company would pay $140,000 to

Alexander Armstrong Alexander Henry Fenwick Armstrong (born 2 March 1970) is an English actor, comedian, radio personality, television presenter and singer. He is the host of the BBC One game show '' Pointless'', as well as the morning show on Classic FM. He is ...

, a NSW state politician, and buy his shares for $180,000. Armstrong was the chairman of the board. Street J found Armstrong had indeed threatened to have Barton killed. But the

NSW Court of Appeal The New South Wales Court of Appeal, part of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, is the highest court for civil matters and has appellate jurisdiction in the Australian state of New South Wales. Jurisdiction The Court of Appeal operates pursu ...

said Barton failed to discharge the onus that the threat had caused him to make the contract.

Advice

The

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) is the highest court of appeal for the Crown Dependencies, the British Overseas Territories, some Commonwealth countries and a few institutions in the United Kingdom. Established on 14 Aug ...

advised that Barton could avoid the contract for being under duress, and it did not matter that he may have agreed to the deal anyway. Lord Cross, Lord Kilbrandon and Sir Garfield Barwick held that physical duress does not need to be the main reason, it must merely be one reason amongst others for entering an agreement. Lord Cross said the same rule should apply for duress as in misrepresentation, "that if Armstrong's threats were ''a'' reason for Barton's executing the deed he is entitled to relief even though he might well have entered into the contract if Armstrong had uttered no threats to induce him to do so". Lord Wilberforce and Lord Simon, dissenting jointly, held that while in substantial agreement on the law, there was no duress on the facts, but the threats needed to be at least ''a'' reason for entering the contract. They held the case

involves consideration of what the law regards as voluntary or its opposite ... Absence of choice ... does not negate consent in law; for this the pressure must be one of a kind which the law does not regard as legitimate. Thus, out of the various means by which consent may be obtained – advice, persuasion, influence, inducement, representation, commercial pressure – the law had come to select some which it will not accept as a reason for voluntary action: fraud, abuse of relation of confidence, undue influence, duress or coercion. In this the law, under the influence of equity, has developed from the old common law conception of duress – threat to life and limb – and it has arrived at the modern generalisation expressed by Holmes J – 'subjected to an improper motive for action' (''
Fairbanks v Snow Fairbanks is a home rule city and the borough seat of the Fairbanks North Star Borough in the U.S. state of Alaska. Fairbanks is the largest city in the Interior region of Alaska and the second largest in the state. The 2020 Census put the pop ...
'''' Fairbanks v. Snow'', 145 Mass. 153, 13 NE 596 (1887))

The three tests for physical duress … are to, first, "show that some illegitimate means of persuasion was used", and second, that "the illegitimate means used was a reason (not the reason, nor the predominant reason nor the clinching reason)", and third that his evidence is "honest and accepted".

References

{{reflist, 2 Australian contract case law English unconscionability case law English duress case law Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from Australia Lord Wilberforce cases 1973 in case law 1973 in Australian law

Facts

Advice

See also

References