#consideration #contract

Facts: The defendant was a member of 22 SAS Regiment. His squadron was told that all members who wanted to remain in the regiment would be required to sign confidentiality contracts, failing which they would be returned to unit ('RTU'). Involuntary RTU was normally imposed as a penalty for some disciplinary offence or on the ground of professional unsuitability for the SAS. It involved exclusion from the social life of the regiment and loss of its higher rates of pay. The defendant asked a colleague whether he could obtain legal advice on the contract and had been told that he could not. He signed the contract. The defendant later left the army and entered into a contract with a publisher to publish his story. As a result the Attorney-General commenced proceedings in New Zealand for breach of contract, claiming an injunction, damages and an account of profits. In his defence the defendant pleaded amongst other things that he had signed the contract under military orders and that it had been obtained by duress. It was held that the threat of RTU was lawful and justifiable as anyone unwilling to accept the obligation of confidentiality was unsuitable for the SAS in any event.

R v Attorney General of England and Wales [2003] UKPC 22, [2003] EMLR 24