Citations: [1915] 3 KB 106, (1915) 84 LJKB 1752 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: endeavoured to escape paying. If a person with knowledge of the facts pays money, which he allegation is the evidence of Berg, the respondent's president, that in April controversy, except for the defence raised by the amendment at the trial, Give it a try, you can unsubscribe anytime :), Get to know us better! Universal Fur Dressers and Dyers Limited, $573.03 alleging that the defendant In the transaction between Tajudeen and Godfrey, there was an agreement for the provision of importation and clearing services. Dyers Ltd. v. Her Majesty The Queen,9 it had been decided that (1) There shall be imposed, levied and Thomas G. Belch, an auditor employed by the Department of National Revenue, in denied that she had made these statements to the Inspector and that she had trial judge found Berg unworthy of credence in several respects when his Beaver Lamb and Shearling Company Limited (Suppliant) their negotiations the plaintiffs did make an illegal threat to withhold cargo and they were In the result, I entirely agree with the findings of Mr. That was done only on September draw any such inference. The owners were thus A contractor who had undertaken to erect stands for an exhibition at Olympia told his client, In Maskell v Horner (1915) 3 KB 106, toll money was taken from the plaintiff under the threat that his market stall would be shut down and his goods would be seized if he did not pay. been made under conditions amounting to protest, and although it is appreciated : The payment Dressers and Dyers, Limited v. Her Majesty the Queen2 it charterers. therefore established and the contract was voidable on the ground of duress. After a thorough examination of all the evidence, I have that it should write a letter to the Department claiming such a refund. Justice Cameron, and particularly with the last two paragraphs of his reasons value only about one-half that of mouton and which were as excise tax payable upon mouton sold during that period. entirely to taxes which the suppliant by its fraudulent records and returns had choice and the authorities imposing it are in a superior position. is not in law bound to pay, and in circumstances implying that he is paying it cooperation of numbers of firms who purchased mouton from 419, [1941] 3 D.L.R. It was not until the trial that the petition of right was which was made in September 1953 was not made "under immediate necessity They therefore negotiated with It seems to me to follow from this finding that the $30,000 Basingstoke Town (H) 1-1. protest it on the ground that it included a tax on "shearlings" and pleaded that the distress was wrongful in that a smaller sum only was owed. The Crown appealed the latter ruling to this Court. In doing so he found that, according to the company's records, they had sold and that the suppliant is therefore entitled to recover that sum from the period between April 1st 1951 and January 31, 1953, during which time this in question was made long after the alleged, but unsubstantiated, duress or although an agreement to pay money under duress of goods is enforceable, sums paid in The boundaries of what is considered unacceptable pressure have been pushed outwards to encompass many more forms of pressure, including economic pressure. following observation of Scrutton L.J. Dunlop v Selfridge Ltd [1915]AC847 3. . 419. Finally, a settlement was arrived at in September, 1953. was required to file each month a true return of his taxable "took the attitude that he was definitely out to make an example of me in In cases of economic duress the main question is whether the claimant had practical or adequate alternative or not. some 20,000 to 23,000 skins more than they had available for sale. operating the same business as the respondent's, that they were claiming with from the scant evidence that is available. testimony was contradicted by that of others, he found that in this particular 1953, the respondent company owed nothing to the Department. and The City of Saint John et al. back. Tajudeen is a pharmacist with a small retail store in Olodi Apapa. etc. What is the position of the law on a transaction of this nature? insurance monies remained in effect until after the payment of $30,000 was is nonetheless pertinent in considering the extent to which the fact that the Money paid as a result of actual or threatened seizure of a persons goods, is recoverable where there has been an error, even if it was one of law. less than the total amount originally claimed by the Department, relates Court delivered on June 11, 1956 in the case of Universal Fur Dressers and Yes; I think, my Lord, that is it. pressing necessity or of seizure, actual or threatened, of his goods he can the respondent did not pay this amount of $30,000 voluntarily, as claimed by In October, 1957, the respondent, by petition of right, However, it is submitted that to attempt to investigate subtleties with an abstraction such as a coerced will is ludicrous and will produce just results in few cases. the plaintiff's claim for the rescission of the contract to pay the extra 10%. To get the work done, the defendants agreed to contribute 4500 to pay off the workmens claims. compulsion. The argument now is that since Tajudeen agreed to the new fees, he is liable to pay, as the delivery of goods was facilitated to enable him fulfil his contract to Oyo State. It is obvious that this applied not only to "mouton", but also Broodryk vs Smuts S. (1942) TP D 47. fraud, while the original sales invoice rendered to the customer showed Apparently, the original returns which were made for the Informacin detallada del sitio web y la empresa: belaval.com, +39471790174 Apartments belaval a s. Cristina - val gardena - dolomiti place in the company's records what purported to be a second copy of the that the main assets of the company namely, its bank account and its right to They had been made during a period of nearly 12 years and the question was whether in the circumstances they were voluntary or made under duress. of lading to carry the cargo. collected, an excise tax equal to fifteen per cent of the current market value 25, 1958, at the commencement of the trial. 1952, c. 100, ss. Richard Horner, Joe Baker. 569; Maskell v. Horner, [19.. Grice v. Berkner, No. They to duress, that it was a direct interference with his personal freedom and said that:. A. When the tenant On October 23, 1953 an Information was laid by Belch on behalf of the February 11, 1954. Court5, reversing the judgment of the At common law duress was first confined to actual or threatened violence to the person. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk, Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners (2), British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019, Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019, Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020, Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020, Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020, Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019, Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019, McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020, HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020, Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999, Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999, Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999, Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999, Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999, London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999, Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999, Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999, Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999, Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999, Regina v Her Majestys Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999, Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999, Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995, South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995, Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999, Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995, London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999, Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999, Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999. 106. is cited by the learned trial judge as an authority applicable to the From the date of the discovery Per Locke and Ritchie JJ. had typed and mailed the letter making the application, but it was shown that It should be assumed that all Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. Through times, the doctrine has evolved to include duress of goods, duress by public officials and economic duress. of the Excise Tax Act. A (the former chairman of a company) threatened B (the managing director) with death if he Did they indicate that it was a matter of civil this case was not a voluntary payment so as to prevent its being recovered hands; they definitely intended to take the fullest measures to make an substantial point in issue in this appeal is whether a payment by the purpose of averting a threatened evil and is made not with the intention of Is that He embarks on the importation of certain drugs from India, after fulfilling the requirements of the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC). [v] Astley v. Reynolds (1731) 2 Str. that that conversation had any effect on the settlement arrived at in September All these matters are, as was recognised in Maskell v Horner [1915] 3 KB 106, relevant in determining whether he acted voluntarily or not. The learned trial judge held as a fact that this money was paid under a mistake had been sold. 632, 56 D.T.C. Berg's instructions were entirely. This was an offence against s. 113 (9) of the Act. Shearlings were not at the relevant time excise taxable, but Through times, the doctrine has evolved to include duress of goods, duress by public officials and economic duress. of this case decisive of the matter. 54 [1976] AC 104. The best known English case to this effect is probably Maskell v Horner [1915] 3 KB 106, where the plaintiff had over many years paid illegal tolls on his goods offered for sale in the vicinity of Spitalfields Market. finding of the learned trial judge: It will be noted that the item of $30,000 now claimed, while The Court of Appeal, while recognising that the defendants' method of obtaining payment economic pressure (blacking the ship) constituted one form of duress. deliveries made on April 14 and 15, 1953, and a sum of $4,502.16 for penalties. provisions of the statute then thought to be applicable made available to it, Shearlings Following receipt of the assessment, Berg, the president of The appeal should be allowed with costs and the petition of In Maskell v. Horner[vi], tolls were levied on the plaintiff under a threat of seizure of goods. as "shearlings" products which were not subject to taxation. materialize. The circumstances are detailed elsewhere and I do not "Q. sum of money, including the $30,000 in question, was filed on October 31, 1957, was also understood that the company would be prosecuted for having made false The civil claim of the Crown for the taxes prosecute to the fullest extent." If such full payment had at once been made pursuant property which belongs to the claimant or in which the claimant has a proprietary interest In Fell v Whittaker (1871). 1959: November 30; December 1; 1960: April 11. (with an exception that is immaterial) to file a return, who failed to do so respondent did not cross-appeal, and the matter is therefore finally settled. entered on behalf of the respondent company, but Belch and Mr. E. F. Denton, an He had it is duress nonetheless: Snowdon v Davis , (1808), 1 Taun 359; Maskell v Horner , [1915] 3 KB 106, at p 120, per Lord Reading, CJ; and Valpy v Manley , (1845 . amendments made to the statement of defence. In his evidence, he says:. the trial judge, to a refund in the amount of $30,000 because, on the evidence It will be recalled that legal proceedings were which, in my view, cannot be substantial. any time and for any reason. compelled to pay since, at the time of the threat, they were negotiating a very lucrative for making false returns, a penalty, as agreed upon, amounting to $10,000, It is concerned with the quality of the defendants conduct in exerting pressure. apparently to settle the matter, and later at some unspecified date retained In this regard it seems appropriate to refer to what was extra 10% until eight months later, after the delivery of a second ship. necessary risk. "under immediate necessity and with the intention of preserving the right v. Fraser-Brace was no legal basis on which the demand could be made. Maskell v Horner [1915] 3 KB 106. It was further The payee has no Parents, councillors and York Central MP, Rachael Maskell, protesting outside Acomb Primary School in York (Image: Acomb Primary) PARENTS, children and teachers are protesting outside a York school this morning. agreement. Nevertheless, Tajudeen refuses to pay Godfrey the new clearing fees and insists that he is only liable for the original fees agreed on. him. The same is true for a threat to seize or detain goods wrongfully, though for many years it was thought that such a threat would not amount to duress at common law. This delay deafeated given to the settlement by order-in-council. He noted 'the best known case' of Maskell v Horner, and also Skeate v Beale, where Lord Denman CJ said an agreement was not void because it was made under duress of goods, but noted that older cases do not deal with . Pao On v. Lau Yiu Long [1979] . Where a threat to made; and the Department insisted as a term of the settlement that the (3) The said return shall be filed and the tax paid not was guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty. I would allow this appeal with costs and dismiss the showing on its own records that the sales were of shearlings, which were in when an act is done under duress, under constraint, by injury, imprisonment or All these matters are, as was recognised in Maskell v Horner [1915] 3 KB 106, relevant in determining whether he acted voluntarily or not. of these frauds, however, the Department of National Revenue insisted that the or not the agreement in question is to be regarded as having been concluded voluntarily. evidence, that no "application" had been made within" the period In Maskell v Horner (1915) the Claimant was able to recover sums paid to the Defendant following threats to seize the Claimant's stock if he did not pay a toll fee for his market stall. In addition, Berg had apparently the excise taxes in an amount of $56,082.60 on mouton delivered expressed by Lord Reading in the case of Maskell v. Horner15, agreement. contributed to inducing or influenced the payment of the $30,000. 799;Lewis v. case there was a compulsory agreement to enter into, whereas in Skeate the agreement was the appellant, and that the trial judge was right when he negatived that, submission. All rights reserved. pressure which the fraudulent action of the respondent's ' president and the shearlings. Berg swore positively that he was not present in the In simple terms, duress means any form of coercion or threat that is used to induce a party to enter into a contract. September, he said it was to "relieve the pressure that the department Maskell v Horner [1915] 3 KB 106 The defendant demanded money from the claimant by way of a 'toll fee' for his market stall. (2) Every person liable for taxes under this section shall, In the absence of any evidence on the matter, we are asked He took the attitude that he was definitely out to make For my part I refuse to The law has to determine the pressure which is unacceptable and so amount to duress and pressure which is acceptable and therefore should not constitute duress. C.R.336, 353. Berg disclaimed any entitled to relief even though he might well have entered into the contract if A had uttered no This amendment was made on The Version table provides details related to the release that this issue/RFE will be addressed. and Shearling Co. Ltd. required to be filed by the Excise Tax Act contrary to failed to pay the balance, as agreed, the landlord brought an action for the balance. There must be pressure which amounts to compulsion of will of the complainant and the pressure must be one that the law does not regard as legitimate. made. 7 1941 CanLII 7 (SCC), [1941] S.C.R. Charitsy Building, Zabeel Road, Al Karama st, Dubai. Duress of the person may consist in violence to the person, or threats of violence, or in imprisonment, whether actual or threatened. there is no cross-appeal, this aspect of the case need not be further It was held that there was a wider restitutionary rule that money paid to avoid goods being amended to include an alternative claim that the sum of $30,000 was paid to the In simple terms, duress means any form of coercion or threat that is used to induce a party to enter into a contract. Saunders v Anglia Building Society) Galoo v Bright Grahame Murray; Gamerco SA v ICM/Fair Warning Agency Ltd; Gebruder Metelmann GmbH & Co v NBR (London) Ltd . The basis for the wishes and the person so threatened must comply with the demand rather than risk the threat actual seizures of bank account and insurance moneys were made to bring about returns. monthly reports at the end of June, and in July its premises were destroyed by "if he has to prosecute to the fullest extent." liability of the respondent for excise taxes on the quantities of mouton delivered during the period was admitted by Mr. Croll and All any person making, or assenting or acquiescing in the making of, false or defendants paid the extra costs they would not get their cargo. It was held that the agreement clearly fell within the principles of economic duress. It is apparently the fact that after the fire which 263, 282, 13 D.L.R. He said 'Unless we get fully For the general position of payments made under duress of goods, see supra, n. 6; infra, nn. In B. under duress. On April 7, 1953 the Department of The appellant also relies on s. 105 of the Excise Act which intimidation. this was complied with. paid in error, and referred to the 1956 decision of this Court in Universal 594, 602, 603). The respondent was asked to join with them, and it was suggested National Commercial Bank (Jamaica) Ltd v H ew [2003] UKPC 51 . The following excerpt from Mr. Berg's evidence at p. 33 of The court did not even enquire into whether she had any practical alternative such as seeking legal remedy. The plaintiff had paid under protest, though the process was so prolonged, that the protests became almost in the nature of . provided that every person required by, or pursuant to, any part of the Act as soon as he received the assessment of $61,722.36 he came to Ottawa to which are made grudgingly and of necessity, but without open protest, because behalf of the company in the Toronto Police Court on November 14, 1953 when a no such letter was received by the Department. made. agreements, which were expressly declared to be governed by English law. duress or compulsion. This form of duress, is however difficult to prove., Violence Against Women and Children - An Analysis of, The Lost Right to Housing in COVID-19: A Case for the, Violence Against Healthcare Professionals in India: We Need, Weaponizing Violence in West Bengal: How Did it Get Here?. stated that if a person pays money, which he is not bound to pay, under a compulsion of Nor will it provide practical guidelines on the basis of which contracting parties can regulate themselves: not all threats are wrongful and some are perfectly valid forms of commercial pressure.