Petricevic & Anor v St Clair

Rodney Michael Petricevic and Mary Judith Petricevic (the applicants) sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Court of Appeal. The dispute originated from a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of property. The respondent, Lorraine Dawn St Clair, resisted the claim on the grounds that the contract was unjust within the meaning of the Contracts Review Act.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Court of Appeal had erred in its application of the law concerning duress and its impact on the Contracts Review Act. Specifically, the applicants argued that the Court of Appeal had incorrectly concluded that a threat made during contract negotiations, even if it had no operative effect on the respondent's decision to enter the contract, was sufficient to establish duress at law and, consequently, injustice under the Act.

The applicants contended that the Court of Appeal's reliance on the majority decision in *Barton v Armstrong* led to an incorrect interpretation of duress. They argued that the essential question should have been whether the conduct complained of vitiated consent, and that the Court of Appeal's approach, which they submitted focused on the mere existence of a threat rather than its operative effect, was flawed. The applicants highlighted that the respondent had received independent advice and that the threat ultimately had no bearing on her decision, suggesting the Court of Appeal's finding of injustice was contrary to the facts and established legal principles regarding duress.