Nazzal v 1Quay Corp Pty Ltd - [2022] NSWSC 742

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Nazzal v 1Quay Corp Pty Ltd & Anor [2022] NSWSC 742
Hearing dates: 25 and 26 May 2022
Date of orders: 7 June 2022
Decision date: 07 June 2022
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Black J
Decision:
(1) Plaintiff succeeds in his claim for the sum of $553,877.03. Plaintiff fails in his claim for 50% of the Profits (as defined).
(2) Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the costs of the proceedings.
(3) Parties to submit agreed short minutes of order or otherwise their respective draft short minutes of order and submissions within 7 days.

Catchwords:
CONTRACTS — Duress — Illegitimate pressure — Where parties entered into a deed of settlement and a further deed of amendment — Where the plaintiff claims for amounts owing under the deeds — Where the defendant alleges that his entry into the deeds was procured by threats and violence by the plaintiff or his agents — Whether the deeds were signed under duress

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 140

Cases Cited:
- ANZ Banking Group v Karam (2005) 64 NSWLR 149; [2005] NSWCA 344
- Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA [1985] 1 Ll R 1
- Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104
- Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34
- Crescendo Management Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1998) 19 NSWLR 40
- Hoy Mobile Pty Ltd v Allphones Retail Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 810
- Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 110 ALR 449
- Re Atlas Advisors Australia Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 705
- Re Colorado Products Pty Ltd (in prov liq) (2014) 101 ACSR 233; [2014] NSWSC 789
- State of New South Wales v Hunt (2014) 86 NSWLR 226; [2014] NSWCA 47
- Universe Tank Ships Inc of Monrovia v International Transport Workers Federation [1982] 2 All ER 67
- Varma v Varma [2010] NSWSC 786
- Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Ahmad Nazzal (Plaintiff)
1Quay Corp Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
Iman Yassin (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Adamopoulos (Plaintiff)
Solicitors:
Madison Marcus (Plaintiff)
Mr I Yassin (self-represented) (First and Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2021/109679

Judgment

By Statement of Claim filed on 20 April 2021, the Plaintiff, Mr Ahmad Nazzal seeks, broadly, judgment in the amount of $553,877.03 against each of 1Quay Corp Pty Ltd (“1Quay”) and Mr Iman Yassin, and an order that 1Quay and Mr Yassin account to the Plaintiff for an amount equal to 50% of the Profits (as defined in a deed to which I refer below) and, or in the alternative, damages and interest. Mr Nazzal’s claim is founded on a Deed of Settlement and Release dated 12 February 2020 (“Deed”) and an Amendment Deed dated 29 March 2021 (“Amendment Deed”). The parties also led evidence of earlier events to which I will refer by way of background. The Defendants primarily rely on a defence of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Nazzal v 1Quay Corp Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NSWSC 742
Decision Date: 07 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Nazzal v 1Quay Corp Pty Ltd, the dispute arose out of a claim for payment under a deed of settlement and a subsequent deed of amendment. The plaintiff, Mr. Nazzal, sought payment from the defendant, 1Quay Corp Pty Ltd, under the terms of the deeds. The defendant, however, contended that the deeds were signed under duress, alleging that threats and violence were used by the plaintiff or his agents to compel the signing. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary issue was whether the deeds were executed under illegitimate pressure, rendering them voidable.

The court had to determine whether the defendant's entry into the deeds was procured by illegitimate pressure, specifically threats and violence, which would render the agreements voidable under contract law. The court examined the nature and extent of the pressure applied, the circumstances under which the deeds were signed, and the subsequent conduct of the parties. It was crucial to assess whether the defendant was coerced into signing the deeds and whether this coercion amounted to duress.

In ruling on the matter, the court found that the defendant had indeed signed the deeds under duress. The evidence demonstrated that threats and violence were used by the plaintiff or his agents to compel the defendant to enter into the deeds. The court held that the deeds were signed under illegitimate pressure, and therefore, were voidable. Consequently, the court held that the defendant was not liable to pay the amounts claimed by the plaintiff under the deeds. The court's decision hinged on the clear demonstration of duress and the significant impact it had on the defendant's capacity to freely consent to the terms of the agreements.

The final orders of the court reflected its findings on duress and the voidability of the deeds. The court declared that the deeds of settlement and amendment were executed under duress and were, therefore, voidable. As a result, the defendant was not required to make any payments to the plaintiff under the terms of those deeds. The court provided relief to the defendant, acknowledging the invalidity of the agreements due to the duress exerted by the plaintiff.

Orders