Gallaher Ltd. v Gallaher Pensions Ltd. & Ors [2005] EWHC 42 (Ch) (21 January 2005)

Gallaher Ltd. v Gallaher Pensions Ltd. & Ors [2005] EWHC 42 (Ch) (21 January 2005)

The words 'Pensions in payment from the Fund' in Rule 7A of the 1987 Deeds bear their natural and ordinary meaning, covering all pensions in payment, including GMP. There is no convincing proof of a continuing common intention to restrict increases to pensions in excess of GMP, nor any objective manifestation of such intention. The claims for rectification and to set aside the deeds for mistake or under the rule in Hastings-Bass fail.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 42 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Gallaher Limited; First Defendant: Gallaher Pensions Limited; Second Defendant: C Foster; Third Defendant: D Silver
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Pension Scheme Deeds, Rectification, Mistake, Rule in Hastings Bass, Guaranteed Minimum Pension (gmp), Limited Price Indexation (lpi)
Pensions Trusts Contract Law Interpretation of Pension Scheme Deeds Rectification Mistake Rule in Hastings Bass Guaranteed Minimum Pension (gmp) +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gallaher Limited

Claimant

Gallaher Pensions Limited

First Defendant

C Foster

Second Defendant

D Silver

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper interpretation of Rule 7A in the 1987 Deeds regarding pension increases
  2. 2 Whether rectification should be granted to restrict increases to pensions in excess of GMP
  3. 3 Whether the 1987 and 1989 Deeds should be set aside for mistake or under the rule in Hastings-Bass

Ratio Decidendi

The words 'Pensions in payment from the Fund' in Rule 7A of the 1987 Deeds bear their natural and ordinary meaning, covering all pensions in payment, including GMP. There is no convincing proof of a continuing common intention to restrict increases to pensions in excess of GMP, nor any objective manifestation of such intention. The claims for rectification and to set aside the deeds for mistake or under the rule in Hastings-Bass fail.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • No rectification of the 1987 Deeds
  • No order setting aside the 1987 or 1989 Deeds