Bustfree Pty Ltd v Llewellyn - [2013] QCA 103

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Bustfree Pty Ltd v Llewellyn & Anor [2013] QCA 103

PARTIES:

BUSTFREE PTY LTD
(appellant)
v
PETER ELFYD LLEWELLYN
(first respondent)
RODERICK WICKHAM JAMES
(second respondent)

FILE NO:

Appeal No 11355 of 2012
DC No 307 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

10 May 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 April 2013

JUDGES:

Gotterson JA, Philippides and A Lyons JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Appellant to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – UNDUE INFLUENCE AND DURESS – DURESS – ECONOMIC DURESS – where the appellant and respondents entered into a business venture which had the objective of exploiting commercially a breast clothing invention of which Ms Westall from the appellant was the inventor – where Ms Westall became concerned that the respondents, of whom each had become a representative director, were being paid disproportionately high director’s fees – where the respondents exited the venture by execution of a Deed of Settlement with Ms Westall – where Ms Westall on behalf of the appellant was independently legally advised in relation to the deed – where draft copies were sent to the legal representatives of Ms Westall and the terms were agreed to by her through her legal representatives a fortnight prior to execution of the deed – where the deed barred all future causes of action between the parties – whether the deed is voidable on account of economic duress applied by the respondents on to Ms Westall

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 293(2)

Alati v Kruger (1955) 94 CLR 216, [1955] HCA 64, cited
Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil GB Ltd [1983] 1 WLR 87, cited
Crescendo Management Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1988) 19 NSWLR 40, considered
Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421, [1972] HCA 61, cited
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614; [1979] UKPC 2, followed
Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v International Transport Workers Federation [1983] 1 AC 366, followed

COUNSEL:

C Westall in her capacity as director of the appellant
M R Bland for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

C Westall in her capacity as director of the appellant
QBM Lawyers for the respondents

GOTTERSON JA: On 9 November 2012, summary judgment was given in these proceedings which were commenced in the District Court at Southport on 12 June 2012. Judgment was given against the plaintiff which is the appellant in this appeal, on the application of the first and second defendants who are the respondents to the appeal. The appellant’s claim was dismissed in its entirety and it was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of the proceedings including the application.

The appellant is a company of which…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bustfree Pty Ltd v Llewellyn

Details

AGLC: Bustfree Pty Ltd v Llewellyn & Anor [2013] QCA 103
Case: [2013] QCA 103
Decision Date: 10 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bustfree Pty Ltd v Llewellyn, the appellant, Bustfree, brought an appeal against the respondents, Llewellyn and others, to challenge the enforceability of a Deed of Settlement which had been executed to end a business venture. The venture involved exploiting a breast clothing invention created by Ms Westall, a representative director of Bustfree. The respondents, who also held directorship positions, were accused of exerting economic duress on Ms Westall, leading to the execution of the deed. The primary concern was whether the Deed of Settlement was voidable due to the alleged economic duress.

The court had to determine if the respondents' actions constituted economic duress, which would render the deed unenforceable. The court considered the circumstances surrounding the agreement, including the fact that Ms Westall had independent legal advice and had agreed to the terms of the deed through her legal representatives prior to its execution. The court also evaluated the nature and extent of the alleged duress, focusing on whether Ms Westall's consent to the deed was truly coerced.

The court found that the evidence did not support the claim of economic duress. The court held that Ms Westall had exercised her independent judgement and had freely agreed to the terms of the deed, thus concluding that no duress was applied. The court further noted that the terms of the deed had been negotiated and agreed upon in good faith. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.

The court's decision reinforced the principle that economic duress must be proven with clear and convincing evidence, and that the presence of independent legal advice and prior agreement to terms can negate claims of duress. The court's dismissal of the appeal affirmed the enforceability of the Deed of Settlement.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Appellant to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal on the standard basis.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Bustfree Pty Ltd v Llewellyn & Anor [2013] QCA 103
PARTIES:	BUSTFREE PTY LTD (appellant) v PETER ELFYD LLEWELLYN (first respondent) RODERICK WICKHAM JAMES (second respondent)
FILE NO:	Appeal No 11355 of 2012 DC No 307 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	10 May 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 April 2013
JUDGES:	Gotterson JA, Philippides and A Lyons JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Appeal dismissed. 2. Appellant to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	EQUITY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – UNDUE INFLUENCE AND DURESS – DURESS – ECONOMIC DURESS – where the appellant and respondents entered into a business venture which had the objective of exploiting commercially a breast clothing invention of which Ms Westall from the appellant was the inventor – where Ms Westall became concerned that the respondents, of whom each had become a representative director, were being paid disproportionately high director’s fees – where the respondents exited the venture by execution of a Deed of Settlement with Ms Westall – where Ms Westall on behalf of the appellant was independently legally advised in relation to the deed – where draft copies were sent to the legal representatives of Ms Westall and the terms were agreed to by her through her legal representatives a fortnight prior to execution of the deed – where the deed barred all future causes of action between the parties – whether the deed is voidable on account of economic duress applied by the respondents on to Ms Westall Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 293(2) Alati v Kruger (1955) 94 CLR 216, [1955] HCA 64, cited Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil GB Ltd [1983] 1 WLR 87, cited Crescendo Management Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1988) 19 NSWLR 40, considered Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421, [1972] HCA 61, cited Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614; [1979] UKPC 2, followed Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v International Transport Workers Federation [1983] 1 AC 366, followed
COUNSEL:	C Westall in her capacity as director of the appellant M R Bland for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	C Westall in her capacity as director of the appellant QBM Lawyers for the respondents