Threats and intimidation give grounds to void agreement – Antonio v Antonio, High Court

In general, people cannot get out of a bad bargain. They generally cannot claim that they were left with no alternative but to sign up to a contract that is contrary to their interests. There are some exceptions, one being duress through threats or intimidation. This is one of those rare cases. In this case, Mrs Antonio had a valuable business and she was splitting up from her husband. Before they totally split up, her husband encouraged her very strongly to enter into a shareholders agreement so that they would be joint owners. Threats and intimidation continued until two years later when there was a violent assault on her. Mrs Antonio then issued proceedings to claim that the original agreement had been entered into under duress and so could be made void.

The High Court agreed with her side of the story. It said that the threats and intimidation were the principal reason for her entering into the agreement, and that it was clear to all those present at the meeting at which she agreed to enter the agreement that she was reluctant to do so. Mr Antonio was unable to show that he had not forced her to enter into the agreement through threats and intimidation. The fact that two years had elapsed following the date on which she had entered into the agreement did not mean that she had affirmed (or accepted) the contract, as the duress had continued during that time.