The Olympic Pride (Etablissements Georges et Paul Levy v Adderley Navigation Co Panama SA: 1980

In the case of a bilateral transaction, there must be convincing proof that the concluded instrument does not represent the common intention of the parties to allow rectification. The policy reason for the need for convincing proof is that certainty and ready enforceability of transactions would otherwise be hindered by constant attempts to cloud the issue.
Mustill J said: ‘The prior transaction may consist either of a concluded agreement or of a continuing common intention. In the latter event, the intention must have been objectively manifested. It is the words and acts of the parties demonstrating their intention, not the inward thoughts of the parties, which matter.’
Mustill J
[1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 67
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAMP (UK) Plc and Another v Barker and Others ChD 8-Dec-2000
The claimants were interested under a pension scheme. Alterations had been made, which the said had been in error, and they sought rectification to remove a link between early leaver benefits and incapacity benefits. The defendant trustees agreed . .
CitedFSHC 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 February 2021; Ref: scu.184571