Al Saif Group v Cable [2022] EWHC 271 (QB) (10 February 2022)

Al Saif Group v Cable [2022] EWHC 271 (QB) (10 February 2022)

The defendant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the Deed was procured by duress to the person. The evidence did not support the existence of threats of immediate arrest and imprisonment at the time of signing, and the defendant's conduct and correspondence were inconsistent with acting under...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 271
Parties
Claimant: AL SAIF GROUP; Defendant: ROBERT THOMAS CABLE
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim (contract/enforcement of Settlement Agreement) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Duress (to the Person), Enforcement of Settlement Agreements, Burden of Proof, Credibility of Witnesses
Contract Law Civil Procedure Duress (to the Person) Enforcement of Settlement Agreements Burden of Proof Credibility of Witnesses

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AL SAIF GROUP

Claimant

ROBERT THOMAS CABLE

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim (contract/enforcement of Settlement Agreement) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deed (Settlement Agreement) was procured by duress to the person and is therefore unenforceable
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to repayment of £20,000 paid under alleged duress

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the Deed was procured by duress to the person. The evidence did not support the existence of threats of immediate arrest and imprisonment at the time of signing, and the defendant's conduct and correspondence were inconsistent with acting under duress. The Deed is enforceable, and the defendant is not entitled to repayment of the £20,000 paid.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • The Deed is enforceable against the defendant.
  • The defendant's counterclaim for repayment of £20,000 is dismissed.