The court considered an application to rectify a pension scheme.
Held: Warren J said: ‘There needs to be cogent evidence of the intentions of both the trustee and the employer where the power of amendment requires the consent of both. . . In a case such as Chartbrook or Daventry, what is sought to be rectified is a contract; it makes sense that, in order to displace the contract actually made by rectifying it, there should be found a consensus, albeit not one giving rise to a legally binding agreement. In contrast, in a case such as the present, no sort of agreement is required for there to be a valid deed of amendments. What is needed is an exercise of the power of amendment by the trustee and the consent of the employer to the exercise of the power. If that is to be called a consensus, so be it, but it is a different animal from the agreement or consensus which is relevant in a contractual case.’
Judges:
Warren J
Citations:
[2012] Pens LR 469
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – IBM United Kingdom Pensions Trust Ltd v Metcalfe and Others ChD 1-Feb-2012
. .
See Also – IBM United Kingdom Pensions Trust Ltd v IBM United Kingdom Holdings Ltd and Others ChD 12-Oct-2012
Application for further amendment of deed of amendment relating to company pension scheme. . .
Cited – FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd CA 31-Jul-2019
Rectification – Chartbrook not followed
Opportunity for an appellate court to clarify the correct test to apply in deciding whether the written terms of a contract may be rectified because of a common mistake.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge was right to conclude that an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Equity
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.640342