Skip to main content
CLOSE

Charities

Close

Corporate and Commercial

Close

Employment and Immigration

Close

Fraud and Investigations

Close

Individuals

Close

Litigation

Close

Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration

Close

Public Law

Close

Real Estate

Close

Restructuring and Insolvency

Close

Energy

Close

Entrepreneurs

Close

Private Wealth

Close

Real Estate

Close

Tech and Innovation

Close

Transport and Infrastructure

Close
Home / News and Insights / Blogs / Pensions / 34: The settled test for rectification of pension scheme documents

The case of SPS Technologies Limited v Moitt and others [2020] EWHC 2421 (Ch) (‘SPS’) confirms there is now a settled test for the rectification of pension scheme documents. Chief Master Marsh stated that:

‘the law on rectification can now be regarded as being settled as a result of the extensive review by the Court of Appeal in the judgment of Leggatt LJ in FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v GLAS Trust Corp Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1361. The application of the principles discussed in that case as they affect pension cases was subsequently considered in Blatchford Ltd v Blatchford and others [2019] EWHC 2473 (Ch).’

What does SPS say about the test for rectification of pension scheme documents?

As a brief reminder, rectification is a process whereby an application can be made to the courts to put right an inadvertent mistake in a written document so that it properly reflects the actual intention of the party or parties to that document. It is a problem that is relatively familiar in pension schemes where a re-write of, or amendment to, a pension scheme’s rules contains an error.

SPS confirmed a number of areas with respect to the rectification of pension scheme documents:

  1. Mistakes in pension scheme documents will usually be caused either by the trustees or principal employer acting unilaterally or both of them acting jointly with the same objective. There is therefore a need to demonstrate that the pension scheme document does not accurately reflect the actual intention of the party (or parties) to the document – it is the subjective intention of the party (or parties) that is key;
  2. In respect of a collective body (such as a trustee board acting unilaterally or jointly with another person) it is their collective intention that is important;
  3. It is the subjective intention of the person or persons who actually approve the document that is relevant, not the persons on whose authority any document was entered into;
  4. Any claimant needs to provide convincing proof, on the balance of probabilities of the intention of the party or parties. In respect of that proof, Chief Master Marsh commented that, ‘inevitably after such a lengthy period, the contemporaneous documents provide the best sources of evidence and the witness statements are inevitably a reconstruction of events that happened many years ago’. The courts are therefore likely to put greater weight on documents than witness statements, particularly where mistakes are uncovered after a number of years have passed;
  5. In order for a pension scheme document to be rectified, it must be demonstrated (following Univar UK Ltd v Smith and others [2020] EWHC 1596 (Ch)) that:
    a) the parties had a common continuing subjective intention, whether or not amounting to an agreement, in respect of a particular matter in the instrument to be rectified;
    b) the intention continued at the time of the execution of the instrument sought to be rectified; and
    c) by mistake, the instrument did not reflect that common intention.
  6. Where there are serial mistakes, such as where a mistake in an original deed is repeated in subsequent deeds, then (following IBM UK Pensions Trust Ltd v IBM UK Holdings Ltd and others [2012] EWHC 2766 (Ch)) once rectification is established in respect of the first document in the series, it is necessary to show that the subjective intention of the parties in executing the later documents was to reflect the entitlement which members had as a matter of law in order for those subsequent documents to also be rectified ie not to just repeat the provisions of the original deed. If the intention of the parties was just to reflect, in new language, the provisions of the original deed then those later documents will not be capable of being rectified.

Conclusion

The confirmations in the judgment provide valuable clarity on the legal test applied to claimants seeking rectification of pension scheme documentation. Convincing proof of intention will be key and documentary evidence is likely to carry more weight than witness statements, particular where the mistake was made some years ago.

Related Articles

Our Offices

London
One Bartholomew Close
London
EC1A 7BL

Cambridge
50/60 Station Road
Cambridge
CB1 2JH

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
Grosvenor House, Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

 

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
Grosvenor House, Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

  • Lexcel
  • CYBER ESSENTIALS PLUS

© BDB Pitmans 2024. One Bartholomew Close, London EC1A 7BL - T +44 (0)345 222 9222

Our Services

Charities chevron
Corporate and Commercial chevron
Employment and Immigration chevron
Fraud and Investigations chevron
Individuals chevron
Litigation chevron
Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration chevron
Public Law chevron
Real Estate chevron
Restructuring and Insolvency chevron

Sectors and Groups

Private Wealth chevron
Real Estate chevron
Transport and Infrastructure chevron