‘A bitter dispute between three “brothers” over who should gain a £70,000 inheritance after a couple mistakenly signed each other’s wills was brought before the Supreme Court today.’
The Independent, 3rd December 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Role of Equity in Mistaken Transactions – Speech by the Chancellor of the High Court. ACTAPS lecture 2013, delivered 20th November 2013.’
Judiciary of England and Wales, 21st November 2013
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
Day and another v Day [2013] EWCA Civ 280; [2013] WLR (D) 129
“For the purposes of the doctrine of rectification in the case of a voluntary settlement it was the subjective intention of the settlor that was of relevance in determining whether the court should order rectification and an outward expression or objective communication of that intention was unnecessary in such a case.”
WLR Daily, 27th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Konica Minolta Business Solutions (UK) Ltd v Applegate: [2012] EWHC 3741 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 9
“When applying uniform accrual to ‘so much of any benefit’ by virtue of section 74(3) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 one was being directed not merely to what one might call the top slice, the benefit which actually accrued at the higher rate, but that element of a benefit package which was the subject of the higher rate. In section 74(3) the ‘benefit’ referred to was the composite of the various benefits which made up long service benefit and if the exception applied it did with regard to the entirety of such a component.”
WLR Daily, 21st December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Cherry Tree Investments Ltd v Landmain Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 736; [2012] WLR (D) 170
“Where it was alleged that a registered charge included an extended power of sale which was included in a facility agreement but was not referred to in the charge, the correct approach was to bring a properly pleaded and proved claim for rectification of the charge, not to seek to apply a ‘corrective construction’ of the charge by reference to extrinsic material.”
WLR Daily, 31st May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A mistake in a contract between two companies can be corrected by a court despite the contract containing a clause stating that only the contents of the contract should govern the disputed deal.”
OUT-LAW.com, 16th July 2010
Source: www.out-law.com
Baxter v Mannion [2010] EWHC 573 (Ch); [2010] WLR (D) 82
“There was no good reason to confine the jurisdiction of the registrar under para 5(a) of Sch 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002 to the correction of procedural mistakes. If any statutory condition which was a prerequisite for registration was shown not to have been satisfied, there was a mistake in the register which the registrar had power to correct.”
WLR Daily, 19th March 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Chartbrook Ltd and another v Persimmon Homes Ltd and another [2009] UKHL 38; [2009] WLR (D) 223
“The admission of pre-contractual negotiations as an aid to the construction of a contract would create uncertainty of outcome in disputes over interpretation and would add to the cost of advice and litigation. The law of contract was designed to enforce promises with a high degree of predictability and if conventional meanings and syntax were to be displaced by inferences drawn from pre-contractual negotiations, the less predictable the outcome was likely to be. The availability of the remedies of rectification and estoppel by convention were safeguards which would in most cases prevent any injustice caused by the exclusion of that evidence.”
WLR Daily, 1st July 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Chartbrook Ltd and Another v Persimmon Homes Ltd and Another
House of Lords
“There were no grounds for the House of Lords to depart from the long standing rule that excluded evidence of what was said or done during the course of negotiating a contract for the purpose of drawing inferences about what the contract meant.”
The Times, 2nd July 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025