Bustfree Pty Ltd v Llewellyn

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.