Key Facts
- •Robert Jewkes (Claimant) assigned his rights under commercial agreements to Samuel and Emily Watson (Defendants) for US$727,000, payable in installments.
- •US$697,000 remains unpaid.
- •The Defendants, aged 22 and 24 at the time, are the children of Gavin Watson, who had business dealings with the Claimant.
- •The Defendants claim non est factum, undue influence, duress, and frustration.
- •The Defendants did not receive independent legal advice before signing the Deed.
- •The first installment was paid by the company on behalf of the Defendants; subsequent payments were not made.
Legal Principles
Non est factum: A person is bound by their signature unless they were misled into signing a document fundamentally different from what they intended.
Chitty on Contracts (35th edn) at 5-049; Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1971] A.C. 1004
Undue influence: Actual undue influence involves emotional pressure or misrepresentation; presumed undue influence arises in relationships of trust and confidence, particularly parent-child, where the transaction is not explicable by ordinary motives.
Chitty on Contracts (35th edn) at 11-104, 11-107, 11-118, 11-123, 11-137, 11-148; Allcard v Skinner (1887) L.R. 36 Ch. D. 145; Malik (Deceased) v Shiekh [2018] EWHC 973 (Ch); Darjan Estate Co Plc v Hurley [2012] EWHC 189 (Ch); Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Etridge (No.2) [2001] UKHL 44
Duress: A contract is voidable if entered into due to illegitimate pressure; lawful threats generally do not constitute duress.
Chitty on Contracts (35th edn) at 11-003; Pakistan International Airline Corp v Times Travel (UK) Ltd [2021] UKSC 40
Frustration: A contract is discharged by frustration if an unforeseen event renders performance impossible or radically different from what was undertaken.
Chitty on Contracts (35th edn) at 27-001, 27-013, 27-014; National Carriers Ltd v Panalpina (Northern) Ltd [1981] A.C. 675; Davis Contractors v Fareham Urban DC [1956] A.C. 696; Tsakiroglou & Co Ltd v Noblee Thorl GmbH [1962] A.C. 93
Summary Judgment: The court may grant summary judgment if the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim.
CPR 24.2; Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Limited [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch); Swain v Hillman [2001] 2 All ER 91; ED & F Man Liquid Products v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472; Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond (No 5) [2001] EWCA Civ 550; Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd v Bolton Pharmaceutical Co 100 Ltd [2007] FSR 63; ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd v TTE Training Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 725; Bhamani v Sattar [2021] EWCA Civ 243
Outcomes
The defences of non est factum, duress, and frustration were struck out.
The court found the Defendants had no real prospect of successfully defending on these grounds.
The application for summary judgment was dismissed.
The court found the Defendants had a real prospect of successfully defending on the grounds of undue influence.