Duress by threats meaning

Misuse of private information claim based on broadbrush allegations fails (Hussain & others v Rahman & others) Hussain and others v Rahman and others [2024] EWHC 116 (KB) What are the practical implications of this case? An appraisal of the evidence led the court to determine that the second claimant’s choice to halt the third claimant’s proceedings against the defendants arose from the pressures of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and his health anxieties in March 2020, decisively dismissing the claimants’ contention that intimidation by the defendants prompted the abandonment of the action. The court reaffirmed adherence to the approach articulated in Murray v Express Newspapers plc [2009] Ch 481 when assessing whether private information has been misused. On these facts, the court concluded that the first claimant—a young woman from a traditional Muslim household who had sought to shield her social activities from the relatively illiberal strictures of family expectation—had a reasonable expectation of privacy over photographs depicting her dressed in Western clothing and embracing a non-Muslim boyfriend....

Carl v Hawkins and others [2024] EWHC 2186 (Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The court confirmed that duress can operate as a defence to conversion where goods are taken by force from the person in possession. Conversion is an intentional tort: it requires an intention to deal with property inconsistently with the true owner’s rights, and someone whose will is completely overridden by threats cannot be said to possess that mental element. A threat of physical violence will suffice where the threatened person genuinely believes that treating the goods as they did was the only way to avoid injury. Accordingly, when duress is pleaded to a conversion claim, the courts will examine both the facts and their effect on the defendant. The decision also underscores that conversion—unlike most torts—is actionable without proof of loss or detriment. Where coercion negates intent, liability for conversion may not arise, but the tort itself does not depend on damage to be brought...

Scope of Practice Note This Practice Note addresses: the doctrine of economic duress—invoked as a defence aiming to avoid a contractual arrangement said to have been concluded under economic pressure (lawful act economic duress receiving Supreme Court confirmation within English law in Pakistan International Airline Corporation v Times Travel). It is advanced to render void or avoidable the bargain concluded under such pressure. the doctrine of undue influence—also relied upon as a defence, allowing a party to rescind a contract or unravel a transaction on the basis that they were induced by undue influence exerted upon them. The focus is on the impairment of free will within a relationship of influence. More frequently encountered in domestic relationships, eg husband and wife regarding jointly owned property, rather than a commercial or business setting. The leading authority here is RBS v Etridge the tort of intimidation—not a defence but an independent tortious cause of action, permitting a claimant to pursue damages; sharing features with economic duress...

Duress by threats Duress by threats furnishes a full defence to any criminal charge save for murder, attempted murder and, potentially, treason. It operates where the accused commits the offence with intention yet is driven to act by another’s threat, or reasonably believes a threat has been issued, that, unless they commit the offence charged, they or a third person will suffer harm. The evidential basis for duress must be put forward by the defendant; once that is done, the prosecution bears the burden of disproving the claim beyond reasonable doubt. See Practice Note: Burden and standard of proof in criminal proceedings. The assessment entails both subjective and objective tests, to be determined by the jury following directions provided by the judge. The defence will succeed only if, when applying both limbs, the jury are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution has excluded duress...