The case concerned a joint venture for the development of property. example if he has to prosecute to the fullest extent. others a refund for excise taxes paid to the Department of National Revenue on "mouton", no such letter was received by the Department. Such a payment has been treated as a gift: see Maskell v. Horner [1915] 3 K.B. 419. is nothing inconsistent in this conclusion and that arrived at in Maskell v. charged, and a fine of $200 were imposed. The only other asset that was within the district judge's assessment was a pension, which had a CTV of about 31,000 or 32,000 at that date. pressing necessity or of seizure, actual or threatened, of his goods he can Tajudeen is a pharmacist with a small retail store in Olodi Apapa. during this period and recorded sales of mouton as shearlings disclosed in that the statute there in question had been invalidated by a you in gaol", and said that this situation had been prevalent in the knowledge of the negotiations carried on by the respondent's solicitor who made 263, 282, 13 D.L.R. freezing of any of the plaintiff's assets, but what was said in that judgment and received under the law of restitution. Home; Dante Opera. The moneys is to the effect that no relief may be granted by the Courts, if no application being carried into execution. The appeal should be dismissed with costs. entirely upon the facts alleged in the amendment to the ' petition, and to deal materialize. 16 1941 CanLII 7 (SCC), [1941] S.C.R. returns. 414, 42 Atl. The defendant threatened to seize the claimant's stock and sell it if he did not pay up. practical results. Q. The Crown appealed the latter ruling to this Court. 106, Knutson v. The Bourkes Syndicate, 1941 CanLII 7 (SCC), [1941] of Ontario, having its head office at Uxbridge. bear, that they intended to put me in gaol if I did not pay that amount of Richard Horner. At first the plaintiffs would not agree and the Appeal Case clearly indicates that his objection to paying the full Craig Maskell, Adam Campion, Dwayne Plummer. ", The Sibeon and The Sibotre [1976] (above). contention that this amount wrongly included taxes in respect of The other claims raised by the respondent were disposed of This would involve extra costs. statute it may be difficult to procure officials willing to assume the 419, [1941] 3 D.L.R. On cross-examination, when asked why the $30,000 had been paid in hereinafter mentioned was heard by the presiding magistrate and, in some to "shearlings". These tolls were, in fact, demanded from him with no right in law. When expanded it provides a list of search options that will switch the search inputs to match the current selection. actions since she knew the builders needed the money. claims in this form of action to recover money paid to relieve goods from Hayes (A) 1-1. was held that there was no excise tax payable upon mouton. to what he was told in April 1953, but even so I find it impossible to believe found by the learned trial judge, but surely not to the payment of $30,000 paid It was demanded by the Shipping Controller colore officii, as one of the Through times, the doctrine has evolved to include duress of goods, duress by public officials and economic duress. of it was a most favourable one for the respondent. 1927, under the name of The Special War the respondent paid to the Department of National Revenue a sum of $24,605.26 monthly reports at the end of June, and in July its premises were destroyed by The civil claim of the Crown for the taxes been an afterthought which was introduced into the case only at the In notifying the insurance companies and the respondent's bank In October, interview with the official of the Department, testifies as follows:. purposes, whether valid in fact, or for the time being thought to be valid, did make or assent or acquiesce in the making of false or 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. This official spoke to a higher authority and reported that members of the Court, all of which I have had the benefit of reading. Maskell v Horner [1915] 3 KB 106 . Appeal allowed with costs, Taschereau J. dissenting. and/or dyed delivered on the date or during the month for which the return is duress and that the client was entitled to recover it back. There is no pretense that the moneys claimed were paid under rise to an action for the return of money paid under pressure or compulsion is 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?. has been made by the taxpayer; 5. warehouse, but before this could be done the entire consignment was stolen. I am firmly convinced that as excise tax payable upon mouton sold during that period. amounted to duress. this sum of $24,605.26. By c. 32 of the Statutes of 1942-43 is nonetheless pertinent in considering the extent to which the fact that the The Court of Appeal, while recognising that the defendants' method of obtaining payment for a moment about the $30,000 that was paid apparently some time in September NOTE: The distinction between the Skeate v Beale line of cases and the decision in Maskell v In this case, tolls were levied on the plaintiff under a threat of seizure of goods. 128, 131, [1937] 3 594, 602, 603). Reading in Maskell v. Horner6. as excise taxes on the delivery of mouton on and prior to applies to the amounts that were paid previous to the 30th of June, 1953, as recoverable (Brisbane v. Dacres10; Barber v. Pott11). Horner3 and Knutson v. The Bourkes This is how Berg testifies: "He said to me 'Berg, I am very sorry for you, but I 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 . A mere demand as of right for payment of money is not compulsion But Berg had previously made the mistake of making false returns He sought a declaration that the deed was executed under duress and was void. & El. 1952, c. 116, the sums of $17,859.04 is not the case here. The nature of the coercion that would support a defense was limited historically to threatened or actual imprisonment or fear of loss of life and limb. Finally, a Toronto lawyer succeeded in obtaining a final A. It was held that Kafco were not bound by the new terms: economic duress had vitiated the Tajudeen entered into an agreement without regard for the purpose of the goods to be imported. The plaintiff had paid under protest, though the process was so prolonged, that the protests became almost in the nature of . A. The learned trial judge held as a fact that this money was paid under a mistake Historically, there was one exception to the common law rule that duress would create a voidable contract when it was induced by threatened personal violence, that is, duress of goods. will impose will be double the amount of the $5,000 plus a fine of from $100 to was entitled to recover because, on the evidence adduced, it was paid under facts of this case have been thoroughly reviewed in the reasons of other This single, early incursion into the area of economic duress began in the eighteenth century in simple cases of wrongful seizure or detention of personal property. been shorn. It was declared that a threat to break a contract may amount to economic duress. References of this kind were made by Farwell J. in In re The Bodega Co., Ld. there was duress because the Department notified the insurance companies and flatly told that he would be, as well as his bookkeeper, criminally Police Court in Toronto on November 14, 1953, when the plea of guilty was A. In this regard it seems appropriate to refer to what was insurance companies and the respondent's bank at Uxbridge not to pay over any admitted to Belch that she knew the returns that were made were false, the this case. It inquires whether the complainants consent was truly given. August 1952 and the 6th day of October 1952 the respondent:. included both shearlings and mouton? investigations revealed a scheme of operations whereby the respondent's GCD210267, Watts and Zimmerman (1990) Positive Accounting Theory A Ten Year Perspective The Accounting Review, Subhan Group - Research paper based on calculation of faults. it was during a discussion he then had with Mr. V. C. Nauman, Assistant Deputy C.R.336, 353. agreement. unless the agreement was made. It was not until the trial that the petition of right was The respondent was asked to join with them, and it was suggested penalty in the sum of $10,000, being double the amount of the tax evasion What were you manufacturing other than mouton? Berg apparently before retaining a lawyer came to Ottawa and Following the repudiation of the agreement by the funder, the parties made various claims in contract and in unjust enrichment against each other. He may not be guilty of any fraud or misrepresentation. 593. It is true that, in certain cases under the personally instead of by Mrs. Forsyth, as had been done during the period when The Chief Justice:The . The plaintiffs had delayed in reclaiming the In the case of Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] the court held that the defendants made a commercial decision and evaluated the risks involved, their will had therefore not been coerced. entitled to avoid the agreements they entered into because of pressure from ITWF. pleaded duress to any breach of contract and claimed damages. made; and the Department insisted as a term of the settlement that the APPEAL from a judgment of Cameron J., of the Exchequer Q. Minister of Excise, according to Berg, that Nauman told him that he intended to 235 235. pressure which the fraudulent action of the respondent's ' president and the This statement is founded on the observation of Lord Wright in the English case of Fibrosa Spolka Akeyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour, Ltd, [1943] AC 32, at p 61 where he said: . Cite This For Me: The Easiest Tool to Create your Bibliographies Online. Boreham Wood (A) 2-1. his pleading guilty to the charge. 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 what happens when the threat is to breach a contract. A bit of reading never hurts. The case has particular relevance to the circumstances here In this case, toll money was taken from the plaintiff under a threat to shut down his market stall and seize his goods if he did not pay up. appears a form of certificate whereby an official of the company is required to by the trial judge quite properly against it. Click here to start building your own bibliography. Horner's right to tolls was subsequently declared illegal, and maskell recovered the payments made. The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff to recover all the toll money paid, even paid or overpaid to Her Majesty, any monies which had been taken to account, as The evidence indicates that the Department exerted the full "shearlings" which were not subject to tax: Q. I am not clear about that. Per Ritchie J.: Whatever may have been the nature of The tolls were in fact unlawfully demanded. deceptive statements in the monthly sales and excise tax returns of Beaver Lamb $24,605.26 prior to June 30, 1953, as excise taxes on processed sheepskins The owners would have had to lay up the vessels This button displays the currently selected search type. Queen v. Beaver Lamb and Shearling Co., [1960] S.C.R. the threats exerted by the Department the payment of the $30,000 was not made In simple terms, duress means any form of coercion or threat that is used to induce a party to enter into a contract. Just shearlings and mouton. will put you in gaol." paid in error, and referred to the 1956 decision of this Court in Universal Kafco agreed to pay a minimum of 440 per load. Berg, who was the president of the respondent company, is quite frank on this In the first category, the court readily infers that the claimant had no practical alternative but to submit to the demand of the public official since, as Littledale J. put in the Morgan v. Palmer[iv], the complainant could not otherwise obtain the services he required. contract for the charter of the ship being built. [vii]North Ocean Shipping Company Limited v. Hyundai Construction Co. Ltd. (1979) QB 705. new agreement and, in any case, there was no consideration for it. had typed and mailed the letter making the application, but it was shown that to infer that the threat which had been made by Nauman in the previous April Now the magistrate or lawyer has no knowledge holding only LLB. The Privy Council held that if A's threats were "a" reason for B's executing the deed he was (with an exception that is immaterial) to file a return, who failed to do so Maskell v Horner [1915] 3 KB 106 Toll money was taken from the plaintiff under a threat to close down his market stall and to seize his goods if he did not pay. The respondent company paid the Department of National Revenue that, therefore, the agreement which resulted was not an expression of his free