Cassar v Wilckens Roche Pty Ltd

In the matter of *Cassar v Wilckens Roche Pty Ltd*, the applicant, Mr Cassar, sought to have a deed of settlement set aside, alleging that it was entered into under duress. The respondent, Wilckens Roche Pty Ltd, resisted this claim. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had established the elements of economic duress at common law. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the applicant had been subjected to illegitimate pressure by the respondent, and if that pressure had been a causative factor in his decision to enter into the deed of settlement.

Judge Burchardt found that the applicant had not discharged the onus of proving economic duress. His Honour considered the nature of the pressure exerted by the respondent, the applicant's alternatives at the time, and the applicant's conduct following the execution of the deed. The Court applied the principles established in cases such as *North Ocean Shipping Corp of Monrovia v Hyundai Construction Co Ltd* and *Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp*, which require proof of illegitimate pressure that was a significant cause of the victim entering into the contract. In this instance, the Court concluded that the pressure, while significant, was not illegitimate in the legal sense, and that the applicant had not been deprived of his free will.

The application to set aside the deed of settlement was dismissed.