The case cannot, in my opinion, be distinguished from Whiteley
(Ltd.) v. The King (5). In that case the plaintiff company sued for
the recovery of amounts paid by way of duties demanded under the
Inland Revenue Act 1869 which it had paid for several years in
respect of certain male servants who were in its employment.
The plaintiff had objected to pay and had paid only under protest, -
being told that in the opinion of the commissioner the duties were
payable and that if they were not paid proceedings would be taken
for penalties. At last, in the year 1906, the plaintiff refused to pay,
and proceedings were taken which were ultimately decided in its
favour. The plaintiff then claimed to recover the sums which it had
paid in respect of duties for six prior years. Walton J. in a judgment
which is much more fully reported in the Law Times Reports (6) than
in the Times Law Reports (7) examined the whole question and decided -
against the plaintiff. He said: '* There is no doubt as to the general
rule stated in Leake on Contracts to which I have already referred,
that money paid voluntarily - that is to say, without compulsion or
extortion or undue influence, and, of course, I may add without
any fraud on the part of the person to whom it is paid, and with
knowledge of all the facts, though paid without any consideration, -
or in discharge of a claim not due, or a claim which might have
been successfully resisted, cannot be recovered back. There is no
doubt, and no question raised, that that is an accurate statement
of the general rule. But, on the other hand, if the payment is not
voluntary a different rule applies which may be stated, perhaps, as -
it is stated in Leake on Contracts ( 5th ed. (1906), p. 61), that money
extorted by a person for doing what he is legally bound to do
without payment, or for a duty which he fails to perform, may be