‘In the second part of his article on the use of evidence law in pensions cases, Paul Newman KC looks at: the evidence required to rectify scheme documents; the nature of the evidence necessary to establish the conduct of groups of scheme members; and the use of Re Benjamin orders to deal with missing or incorrect scheme data.’
Pensions Barrister, 19th December 2024
Source: www.pensionsbarrister.com
‘In National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive T/A Nexus [2024] UKSC 37, the Supreme Court has handed down an important judgment on the scope of rectification, holding that a collective bargaining agreement can be rectified even though it is not a legally enforceable contract. Of greater relevance for pensions lawyers is the decision that the Employment Tribunal, whilst it does not have the power to make a rectification order, can nevertheless treat a document as having been rectified on the basis of the principle that “equity can treat as done that which ought to have been done”. This has potentially wide-ranging consequences for other statutory tribunals, including the FTT and the Pensions Ombudsman.’
Pensions Barrister, 14th November 2024
Source: www.pensionsbarrister.com
‘David E Grant KC, who is a member of the Pensions Litigation Court Users’ Committee, has written an article about the proposed change to PD57AC (trial witness statements in the business and property courts), which will exempt pensions rectification proceedings from the scope of the PD.’
Pensions Barristers, 25th January 2024
Source: www.pensionsbarrister.com
‘A claimant has succeeded in obtaining rectification of a deed of appointment supplemental to a Will – but only on appeal to the Judge after the Master gave an opportunity to improve on the evidence (before the Master dismissed the claim) – and even though the application was unopposed: Laird v Simcock. Paul Newman KC has written a casenote highlighting the quality of evidence required for unopposed rectification applications.’
Pensions Barristers, 24th August 2023
Source: www.pensionsbarrister.com
‘The Court of Appeal in Dhillon v Barclays Bank Plc and the Chief Land Registrar [2020] EWCA Civ 619 has recently given judgment in an important case involving the rectification of the Land Register. It has given new guidance on the test of ‘exceptional circumstances’ in Schedule 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002. It has also repeated a warning to practitioners that pleadings should clearly identify the issues to be resolved.’
39 Essex Chambers, 1st July 2020
Source: www.39essex.com
‘On 19 June 2020, Mr Justice Trower handed down judgment granting rectification of the Univar Company Pension Scheme (1978), in the first pension rectification claim decided after a full trial since the landmark decision of the Court of Appeal in FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v GLAS Trust Corp Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1361.’
Wilberforce Chambers, 22nd June 2020
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘The starting point for the Law Commission when considering the reform of land registration was that the register should be as complete and accurate a record of information relevant to the title of a particular estate in the land as is possible1. It is generally recognized that the Land Registration Act 2002 has gone a long way to achieving this aim prompting one judge to say “… the Land Registration Act 2002, (the “2002 Act”) is not merely a scheme for registering title. It is a scheme of title by registration.”2 It is clear that in achieving that purpose the title conferred by the register should be indefeasible. However, it is accepted that no register of title can ever be wholly accurate and complete. For example, the existence of unregistered overriding interests means that the register entry of any title might not necessarily show certain incumbrances. Mistakes in the register are another example where the register entry might not completely or accurately record the information relevant to a title. Mistakes are potentially crucial because unlike unregistered overriding interests, mistakes are not necessarily easily discoverable and, at present at least, there is no time limit for altering the register as a consequence of such mistakes. This paper will examine the current law relating to mistakes in the Land Register, and will also consider the proposals for reform.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 7th November 2019
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘In this key decision, the Court of Appeal gives detailed consideration to the principles underpinning various doctrines in contract to ascertain the correct test for rectification of a written instrument because of the presence of a common mistake.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 12th August 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal handed down judgment yesterday [2 August] in FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Limited [2019] EWCA Civ 1361.’
Littleton Chambers, 2nd August 2019
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘In this case tender documentation appended to the Sub-Contract documentation had the effect of limiting the scope of obligations under the Sub-Contract.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 25th January 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘Lord Briggs at the Denning Society Annual Lecture, Lincoln’s Inn.’
Supreme Court, 8th November 2018
Source: www.supremecourt.uk
‘In November 2016, the BBC carried the story Terminally-ill teen won historic ruling to preserve body, following the lifting the territorial reporting restrictions which existed until one month after the death of the teenager concerned, a girl referred to as “JS”: see JS (Disposal of Body), Re [2016] EWCH (Fam). We noted the case here and looked at some of the more general practicalities of regulating cryogenic preservation – the storage of the brains and/or bodies of legally-dead humans at low temperatures. In the aftermath of the ruling in JS, the Charity Commission for England and Wales decided in 2017 to remove the Human Organ Preservation Research Trust (HOPRT) from the Register; and in Hipkiss v Charity Commission for England & Wales [2018] FTT (Charity) CA/2017/0014, Mr Graham Hipkiss, its sole remaining trustee, succeeded in an appeal to the First Tier Charity Tribunal against the order of the Commission.’
Law & Religion UK, 17th September 2018
Source: www.lawandreligionuk.com
‘In Interserve Construction Ltd v Hitachi Zosen Inova AG, the court was asked to interpret the termination provisions of a contract to determine whether there was a condition precedent clause.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 15th November 2017
‘It is well known that the governing principle of the Land Registration Act 2002 is to enable anyone to be aware of any interest affecting a piece of land by simply inspecting the land register (subject to some limited exceptions, e.g. where a person is in occupation and their interest is likely to be obvious from a reasonable inspection). If an interest affecting the land is not noted within the register then it ought not bind a subsequent registered proprietor.’
Tanfield Chambers, 4th August 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Comments by a High Court judge during a recent application for rectification of a pension trust deed could have “unintended consequences” for future applications, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 9th June 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
In re G (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008) [2016] EWHC 729 (Fam)
‘The applicant, X, who was at all material times in a same-sex relationship with Y, was the biological mother of twins, born as a result of IVF treatment provided by a licensed fertility clinic to Y, the gestational mother and the twins’ legal parent. Y was at all material times in a civil partnership with, though separated from, another woman who was not a party to the proceedings. Y, as the gestational mother, should have signed Form WP, and X, as her partner, should have signed Form PP. In fact, and as a result of what was accepted to have been errors by the clinic, Y completed and signed a Form PP and X completed and signed a Form WP. A similar mistake was made in relation to the Form IC signed by both Y and X. X, supported by Y, sought a declaration pursuant to section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986 that she was, in accordance with section 43 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, the legal parent of the twins and in the circumstances it was common ground that X was entitled to the relief she sought. The issues were: (1) whether that was a conclusion that the court could come to simply by a process of construction or whether the proper form of order was a decree of rectification and (2) arising out of the fact that Y was at all material times in a civil partnership with another woman, the potential impact of section 42(1) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 which provided: “If at the time of the placing in her of the embryo or the sperm and eggs or of her artificial insemination, W was a party to a civil partnership or a marriage with another woman, then subject to section 45(2) to (4), the other party to the civil partnership or marriage is to be treated as a parent of the child unless it is shown that she did not consent to the placing in W of the embryo or the sperm and eggs or to her artificial insemination … ”’
WLR Daily, 6th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A law firm that admitted negligence has fought off a £100,000 claim after the court decided no harm was caused by its mistake.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 21st March 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A run of recent decisions shows the “increasingly pragmatic approach” that the courts in England are adopting when faced with applications to fix mistakes in pension scheme deeds, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 9th February 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
Contract Formation and the Fog of Rectification (PDF)
Speech by Sir Terence Etherton
Judiciary of England and Wales, 24th April 2015
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024