Bermuda: Sign This Or Else! Economic Duress Under Bermuda Law

Last Updated: 13 February 2017
Article by Alex Potts and Caitlin Conyers

Economic distress leads to economic duress

When the ratings agency, Moody's, downgraded Bermuda in June 2016, it noted that the Bermudian economy had suffered a recession from 2009 to 2014, in the wake of the global financial crisis.

Although the Bermudian economy has been growing again since 2015, the effect of 5 years of recession has been felt both by international and local businesses based in Bermuda, and by local residents.

As a result, a number of Bermudian businesses have had to restructure, close, or cut costs (whether by way of merger, consolidation, termination of employees, arrangements with creditors and shareholders, liquidation or receivership).

In turn, and partly as a result of job losses and a decline in rental incomes, a significant proportion of local residents have defaulted on, or had to renegotiate, their debt obligations and their mortgages.

Against this background of economic distress, the Bermuda courts have started to see, and are likely to see an increasing number of, commercial and contractual disputes in which one of the parties seeks to avoid its contractual obligations on the basis of an argument that it only entered into the relevant contract under "economic duress", or as the result of illegitimate commercial pressure.

It is not surprising, of course, that at a time of widespread economic hardship, many individuals and businesses may feel that they have been 'bullied' into agreements which they would not have agreed to if they had been in a position of greater commercial strength. But while the Court has an important role to play in regulating the improper use of illegitimate pressure or duress, it is not the Court's function to renegotiate all commercial contracts, nor to ensure that all contracting parties negotiate from positions of absolute commercial equality.

The doctrine of "economic duress" is a relatively modern part of English and Bermuda law, having first emerged in the English case law in the 1970s and 1980s, and then in the Bermuda case law in the late 1980s1 and early 2000s2. However, the kinds of disputes in which claims of economic duress have been asserted and considered are wide-ranging, and include cases such as these:

  • a building contractor refuses to complete building works unless the employer agrees to make additional payments or to waive accrued rights;
  • an employer threatens to dismiss an employee unless the employee agrees to revised terms of employment and a lower wage for the same work;
  • a bank threatens to repossess and sell a family home or other valuable asset unless the borrower (or a third party) agrees to provide additional security and agree to increased capital or interest payments3;
  • a husband threatens to litigate indefinitely and unreasonably, and cuts off all sources of income, unless the impoverished divorcing wife agrees to accept a settlement agreement for a sum much lower than she would otherwise be entitled to4; and
  • a trade union threatens to strike, or take some other form of unlawful industrial action, unless the Government, or an employer, succumbs to its demands.

This article is intended, therefore, to summarise the current state of Bermuda law on "economic duress".

In summary, economic duress is the exertion by one party of illegitimate economic, commercial or similar pressure on another party, which induces that party to offer its consent or to enter into an agreement. Where economic duress can be established, the innocent party will be entitled to avoid the consent or agreement, on the basis that it was unable to exercise its free will.

For economic duress to be established, however, the pressure must be found by the Court to be "illegitimate", and something more than the "rough and tumble of the pressures of normal commercial bargaining".

Although each case will turn on its own unique facts, the principal tests for economic duress were usefully summarized by Mr. Justice Dyson (as he then was) in the English case of DSND Subsea Ltd v Petroleum Geo-Services ASA [2000] BLR 530, citing Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v International Transport Workers Federation [1983] AC 336 and Dimskal Shipping Co SA v ITWF, The Evia Luck [1992] 2 AC 152.

In that case, Dyson J noted that the economic pressure needed to be of the sort: "(a) whose practical effect is that there is compulsion on, or a lack of practical choice for, the victim, (b) which is illegitimate, and (c) which is a significant cause inducing the claimant to enter into the contract".

One of the key elements in establishing economic duress is to prove that the threat was wrongful and/or illegitimate, and in this context, the authorities have drawn a distinction between a threat of unlawful action (which is prima facie illegitimate) and a threat of lawful action (which is prima facie legitimate).

The courts have been relatively cautious when it comes to expanding the principle of economic duress to commercial contexts where the threatened action is entirely lawful, and in those cases, the case law suggests that it will only be applied in "relatively rare" cases (see CTN Cash CTN Cash and Carry Ltd. v Gallagher Ltd. [1994] All ER 714 at 719).

One of such cases, however, is where the action, conduct, or pressure is clearly "unconscionable" as a matter of equity, even if it is technically lawful as a matter of black-letter law.

Borelli v Ting: lawful but unconscionable

As a matter of Bermuda law, where a party claims that an agreement was entered into under economic duress and the conduct of the defendant was not unlawful, the Privy Council held in Borelli v Ting [2010] UKPC 2, per Lord Saville, that economic pressure may be considered illegitimate where a party's conduct amounts to "unconscionable conduct" as a matter of equity.

In that particular case, a Bermudian company, Akai Holdings Limited (Akai), collapsed owing debts of over US$1billion. The liquidators of Akai had proposed a Scheme of Arrangement involving the transfer of shares to recover some of the debt but under Bermuda law, the scheme required the consent of the majority of shareholders, which included two companies controlled by Mr. Ting (the Chairman and CEO of Akai). Mr. Ting refused to consent and sought to defeat the scheme through the use of forged signatures and the provision of false evidence. However, as the deadline for the transfer of shares approached, the liquidators entered into a settlement agreement whereby Mr. Ting withdrew his opposition to the scheme, in consideration for the liquidators agreeing to grant Mr. Ting immunity from any claim in relation to his conduct of Akai.

The Privy Council avoided the settlement agreement, on the liquidators' application, holding that Mr. Ting's conduct amounted to "unconscionable conduct", that the liquidators had "no reasonable or practical alternative but to make a deal", and that it would "offend justice" to permit Mr. Ting to rely on the immunity conferred upon him by the settlement agreement to defeat the claims (including the misappropriation of funds of Akai) brought against him by the liquidators.

The test of unconscionable conduct has also been applied in Australia, where it has been stated by McHugh JA in Crescendo Management Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1988) 19 NSWLR 40 that "pressure will be illegitimate if it consists of unlawful threats or amounts to unconscionable conduct".

In English case law, the test for illegitimate pressure has been the subject of varying descriptions (over and above the phrase "unconscionable conduct"), including whether the conduct was "morally or socially acceptable" (see CTN Cash and Carry Ltd. v Gallagher Ltd. [1994] All ER 714, per Lord Justice Steyn) and whether the conduct involved "impropriety" (see Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd v Tube City IMS LLC (The Cenk Kaptanoglu) [2012] All ER 122, per Cooke J).

In the recent English case of Dawson v Bell (unreported) (21 May 2014), Judge Havelock-Allan QC5 suggested that the Privy Council case of Borrelli v Ting did not introduce any new legal principle, but that it was simply an "application of the established principles, which are founded on the concept of what is conscionable, to a particular set of facts".

The relevant factors when assessing a claim of economic duress

As Mr. Justice Dyson explained in DSND Subsea Ltd v Petroleum Geo-Services ASA [2000] BLR 530, the Bermuda Court should take into account the following considerations and factors, when determining a claim of economic duress:

  • whether there has been an actual or threatened breach of contract;
  • whether the person allegedly exerting the pressure has acted in good or bad faith;
  • whether the victim had any realistic, practical alternative but to submit to the pressure;
  • whether the victim protested at the time; and
  • whether the victim affirmed and sought to rely on the contract.

One further consideration recognised by the case law is whether the victim had access to independent legal advice at the time of offering its consent or entering into the agreement.

Ultimately, each case will turn on its own unique facts and evidence, and as the English House of Lords held in Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v International Transport Workers Federation [1983] 1 AC 366, per Lord Scarman: "The classic case of duress is ... not the lack of will to submit but the victim's intentional submission arising from the realisation that there is no other practical choice open to him ... The absence of choice can be proved in various ways, eg by protest, by the absence of independent advice, or by a declaration of intention to go to law to recover the money paid or the property transferred."

The Hong Kong Court of First Instance, per Lam J, has recently considered these factors in deciding to set aside a settlement agreement and a consent order in the case of Zebra Industries (Orogenesis Nova) Ltd v Wah Tong Paper Products Group Ltd. [2015] HKCFI 1538. In that case, the Court found that the plaintiff had "no real choice" but to enter into the settlement agreement, and to accept a lower arbitration award than it was legally entitled to, as the defendant refused to pay the award, and the plaintiff could not enforce the award due to its own impecuniosity. In considering whether the pressure was illegitimate, the Court considered the state of mind of the defendant, stating that "prima facie [the defendant] knew or at least had reason to think that [the plaintiff] was impecunious" (paragraph 96) and that there was a "conscious breach" of contract and the defendant had "no genuine belief ... that it was legally entitled to withhold payment" (paragraph 117). On the issue of contemporaneous protest, the Court was satisfied that the plaintiff had protested on the basis of email correspondence in which the plaintiff had stated that it had "no choice" and was faced with an "impossible situation". Furthermore, within a month of the settlement, the plaintiff had made a prompt application to have the consent order set aside.

Conclusion

Given Bermuda's economic circumstances, the Bermuda Courts are likely to see an increasing number of claims of "economic duress". The principles identified in the case law are not only of relevance in a litigious environment, however. Even in a transactional context, all contracting parties in Bermuda would be well advised to keep the scope of the doctrine of "economic duress" carefully in mind when negotiating a contract governed by Bermuda law, to mitigate the risk that the contract might be avoided, in the future, by claims of illegitimate commercial pressure, above and beyond the acceptable "rough and tumble of the pressures of normal commercial bargaining".

Footnotes

1 See, for example, National Iranian Oil Company v Ashland Overseas Trading Ltd [1987] Bda LR 64, [1988] Bda LR 13.

2 See, for example, Flag Ltd v Reda and Abdul-Jalil [2000] Bda LR 27, [2000] Bda LR 17.

3 See, for example, Junos v Bank of Bermuda (HSBC) [2013] Bda LR 54.

4 See, by way of contrast, Gibbons v Gibbons [2010] Bda LR 31, X v Y [2013] Bda LR 30, and Peniston v Peniston [2016] SC Div Bda 47, in which the Supreme Court of Bermuda has dismissed various applications to set aside Consent Orders in divorce proceedings on the basis of allegations of duress.

5 Published as an Annex to the Court of Appeal decision, per Tomlinson J, in Dawson v Bell [2016] EWCA Civ 96, [2016] 2 BCC 59

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

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

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

Authors
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

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 Mondaq.com’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.

Disclaimer

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.

Registration

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 unsubscribe@mondaq.com 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.

Cookies

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.

Links

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.

Mail-A-Friend

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.

Security

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 webmaster@mondaq.com.

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 EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

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 enquiries@mondaq.com.

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