Rossen v Airey

The appeal concerned a dispute between the appellant, Rossen, and the respondent, Airey, regarding the enforceability of a deed of settlement. The primary issue before the Full Federal Court was whether the deed, which purported to settle a claim for damages arising from a breach of contract, was valid and binding on the parties.

The court was required to determine whether the deed of settlement was vitiated by duress, specifically economic duress. This involved an examination of whether Rossen's conduct in threatening to withdraw from a joint venture unless Airey executed the deed amounted to illegitimate pressure that deprived Airey of any practical choice but to agree to the settlement terms. The court also considered whether Airey had affirmed the deed after the alleged duress had ceased.

In its reasoning, the Full Federal Court applied the principles governing economic duress. The court noted that for duress to be established, the pressure exerted must be illegitimate and must have caused the victim to enter into the contract. The court found that while Rossen's conduct was commercially aggressive, it did not amount to illegitimate pressure in the legal sense. The court distinguished between legitimate commercial bargaining and illegitimate threats that overcome a party's will. Furthermore, the court found that even if duress were established, Airey had affirmed the deed by continuing to operate under its terms after the alleged pressure had been removed, thereby losing the right to resile from it.

The Full Federal Court accordingly dismissed the appeal, upholding the primary judge's finding that the deed of settlement was valid and enforceable.