UK: Economic Duress

Last Updated: 25 February 2002

Economic duress has always been considered by lawyers as a notoriously difficult allegation to establish. Two recent cases in the Technology and Construction Court provide guidance as to what is required and practical examples of what does and what does not constitute economic duress.


In substance, economic duress amounts to the application of illegitimate pressure by one party on another, which results in the innocent party being forced to enter into a contract they would otherwise not have entered into. The concept of economic duress has been recognised, in theory at least, for many years. However, it remains difficult to establish in practice. The problem for judges and arbitrators is drawing a distinction between tough, but legitimate commercial negotiations on the one hand and unlawful coercion on the other. DSND Subsea v. Petroleum Geo-Services [2000] BLR 531 and Carillion Construction Limited v. Felix (UK) Limited [2001] BLR 1 are two recent cases in which economic duress was raised. Both cases were before the same judge, Dyson J, and decided only three months apart. Economic duress was successfully argued in one, but not the other.

DSND Subsea case

The factual background to this case is complicated and concerned the development of a Floating Production Storage and Off-Take vessel ("FPSO") in the Banff sector of the North Sea. PGS Offshore Technology AS ("PGS") contracted with DSND Subsea Limited ("DSND") to provide subsea work required to hook up the FPSO to an underwater wellhead. The agreement was formalised in a number of documents. The first of these was the heads of agreement. There was no dispute about the terms of this agreement. Subsequently, the parties entered into a further document, the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"). PGS later alleged inter alia that this agreement was entered into as a result of economic duress. DSND had refused to continue work on the FPSO until PGS had agreed to provide i) assurances as to their insurance cover and an indemnity, and ii) a reimbursable basis of payment. PGS were under severe financial pressure from their employer and were at risk of substantial damages for delay. PGS agreed to these terms. They claimed later that they had done so under duress.

Dyson J summarised the law in the following test

There must be:

  • a threat or pressure,
  • whose practical effect is that there is compulsion on, or a lack of practical choice for, the victim,
  • which is illegitimate, and
  • which is a significant cause inducing the claimant to enter into the contract.

In determining whether there has been illegitimate pressure, the court should take into account a range of factors. These include:

i) whether there has been an actual or threatened breach of contract;

ii) whether the person allegedly exerting pressure has acted in good or bad faith;

iii) whether the victim protested at the time; and

iv) whether he affirmed and sought to rely on the contract.

Dyson J decided that PGS had not entered into the MOU under duress. In so deciding Dyson J considered the contemporaneous documents and behaviour of the parties. There was no allegation of duress by PGS at the time the MOU was entered into. Indeed, the allegation of duress was only raised after the proceedings had been commenced on a different basis. In addition, rather than complain about the tactics employed by DSND, PGS representatives went to dinner with their DSND counterparts. The judge was also swayed by the fact that the negotiated terms of the MOU contained "give and take on both sides" albeit that DSND finally achieved a better result than PGS. It was also clear that PGS considered DSND’s concerns over insurance and indemnity as genuine given the risks involved in the project. As a result, he found that PGS had not entered into the contract under duress, even though the suspension of work by DSND was in breach of contract. Dyson J stated that this was "reasonable behaviour by a contractor acting bona fide in a very difficult situation".

In contrast, Dyson J considered the hypothetical situation where DSND had suspended work on the FPSO purely on the basis of securing a more favourable, reimbursable payment regime. Dyson J stated "This would have been a flagrant breach of contract, and, if pressure, it would in my view have been illegitimate pressure.".

Dyson J then went on to consider whether, assuming that duress had been established, PGS had affirmed the MOU by its subsequent conduct. The Judge confirmed that a contract entered into under duress is only voidable not void. As a result, the party who has the right to avoid the contract loses that right by affirming the contract. A contract may be affirmed expressly or alternatively impliedly by acquiescence. On this the Judge stated " will provide evidence of acquiescence if the victim fails to take any steps to set aside the transaction within a reasonable time after he is freed from the undue influence." Therefore once a party becomes aware of his right to avoid the contract due to economic duress, he is obliged to act promptly if he wishes to be escape the contract on that basis. In DSND Subsea PGS had gone further than mere acquiescence, they had actually relied upon the terms of the MOU to take issue with DSND. This, Dyson J concluded, was a clear affirmation of the contract by PGS.

Carillion construction case

In contrast, in this case Dyson J held that threats by a contractor not to complete the work unless a settlement was reached did constitute economic duress and the settlement agreement was held to be voidable by the employer.

Carillion Construction Limited ("Carillion") were the main contractor for the construction of an office building in London. Carillion engaged Felix (UK) Ltd ("Felix") as subcontractor to design, manufacture and supply cladding for the building. The cladding work was supposed to be completed by 17 January 2000. At the end of February, although they had not completed the work, Felix presented its final account of £3,314,000 for payment. Carillion assessed their entitlement at only £2,756,000. As a result of incomplete cladding areas of the building were still exposed and other work on the building was being delayed. Felix then wrote to Carillion and stated that "Without the figure being agreed, [we] cannot predict when the project will be complete".

Although Carillion never believed the account to be worth the figure claimed by Felix (indeed they could not find a way to justify a figure over £2,900,000) they finally agreed to pay £3.2m. Once the settlement was agreed the deliveries began and proceeded as originally scheduled.

Dyson J referred to the criteria he set out in DSND Subsea and applied it to the facts of the present case.

  • Threat or application of pressure? Felix had threatened not to make any deliveries until settlement was reached, which was clearly a threat to commit a breach of contract. Carillion were under pressure to complete the job as soon as possible and could not do so without the cladding from Felix.
  • Lack of practical alternative for Carillion? Carillion were desperate for the cladding to be completed. Without it other trades could not start and the overall project would be delayed. The cladding provided by Felix was bespoke and Carillion could not go anywhere else. Adjudication was not an option because it would still have taken at least six weeks to obtain a decision and there were real difficulties in obtaining a mandatory injunction.
  • Was the pressure illegitimate? Felix had no entitlement to have their final account paid before completion of the work, nor did the contract provide Felix with a right to suspend deliveries until payment was made. Furthermore, Felix were claiming more than they were contractually entitled and were obviously aware that Carillion had no realistic alternative but to concede to their demands for payment.
  • Was the pressure a significant cause inducing the claimant to enter into the contract? It was clear from the facts that Carillion would never have entered into the settlement agreement on the terms but for Felix threatening not to deliver. There was no legitimate commercial reason for Carillion to enter into that agreement. Furthermore, Carillion indicated in contemporaneous correspondence their "extreme displeasure at being required to enter into such an agreement".


As Dyson J stated in DSND Subsea "Illegitimate pressure must be distinguished from the rough and tumble of the pressures of normal commercial bargaining". But what guidance can be given to those involved in such negotiations? A party’s simple refusal to perform its contractual obligations until certain conditions are met is not enough to establish economic duress. As is made clear by Dyson J in both cases, a number of other factors must be present such as lack of practical alternative for the "victim", the application of illegitimate pressure, that pressure being the significant cause inducing the victim to enter into the contract.

In establishing whether pressure is illegitimate, consideration should be paid to the nature of the demands being made and whether they can be justified. In DSND Subsea, Dyson J made a distinction between a demand for further indemnities and insurance protection (held to be justified) and a demand for an enhanced payment scheme (unjustified). The judgment in DSND Subsea also illustrates how events that take place after the alleged duress can also be of crucial importance. Once the deal was finalised between DSND and PGS, there was no mention of duress or blackmail in any of PGS’s internal memoranda. This suggested to Dyson J that the agreement had not been entered into under the influence of illegitimate pressure or, alternatively that DSND’s conduct had not been a significant cause in their decision to enter into the MOU. The Judge was also persuaded by the fact that PGS did not raise the issue of duress with DSND until proceedings had been commenced. It was held that PGS had, in any event, affirmed the MOU since they had declined to terminate it despite having the opportunity to do so.

What should a negotiator do if they consider themselves a victim of economic duress? The first thing to do is to make it clear to those applying the pressure that you strongly disapprove of their conduct. Furthermore, as soon as the pressure has subsided serious consideration should be given (after receiving legal advice) to terminate the contract on the basis that it was entered into under duress, otherwise there is a risk that a Judge or Arbitrator will conclude that despite the apparent duress the innocent party has now affirmed the contract in any event.

Conversely, those finding themselves in an unusually strong bargaining position (e.g. where the other side have no practical alternative) in settlement negotiations should be careful to avoid threats not to perform (or act in breach of contract) or demands which could be perceived as being in bad faith or unjustifiable in the circumstances.

"© Herbert Smith 2002

The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

For more information on this or other Herbert Smith publications, please email us."

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.