Lound v Grimwade: ChD 1886

The plaintiff tried to set aside a bond, saying that he had executed it under duress in the form of the threat of criminal proceedings.
Held: The bond had not been executed under pressure at law. However the consideration for it included a stipulation that certain criminal proceedings against a third party should be conducted in such a way that the plaintiff’s name should not be mentioned and, accordingly, the consideration was partly illegal.
Stirling J referred to Egerton v Bownlow and said: ‘Upon this principle it has been repeatedly held that agreements tending to affect the course of legal proceedings are illegal, even although those proceedings may not be strictly criminal in their nature.’


Stirling J


[1886] 39 ChD 605


CitedEgerton v Earl of Brownlow HL 1853
The House considered a challenge to the terms of a trust on the basis that it offended public policy. The House therefore considered the nature and importance of public policy.
Held: Public policy ‘has been confounded with what may be called . .

Cited by:

CitedHoward v Odhams Press CA 1935
The plaintiff claimed damages arising out of disclosure to his union of fraudulent activities in the defendant’s competition department of which he had been a member, such disclosure being contrary to an agreement between the claimant and his . .
CitedAustralia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Compagnie Noga D’Importation Et D’Exportation Sa and Another ComC 21-Feb-2007
Non-payment of bills of exchange – construction of settlement agreement. It was said that the compromise agreement ws unenforceable as being against public policy in restraining one party.
Held: The restraint ‘does not affect the course of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.270279