The Girls' Day School Trust v GDST Pension Trustees Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 1254 (Ch) (26 May 2016)

The Girls' Day School Trust v GDST Pension Trustees Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 1254 (Ch) (26 May 2016)

The executed Definitive Deed did not reflect the parties' objectively established common intention, as both GDST and the Trustee intended to execute Version 2, not Version 1A. The documentary evidence was compelling and unchallenged, making rectification appropriate. There was no real prospect of any defence succeeding, justifying summary judgment without a hearing.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1254 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: The Girls' Day School Trust; First Defendant: GDST Pension Trustees Limited; Second Defendant: Vivienne Chartres
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Rectification of Pension Scheme Deed / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for rectification of the Definitive Deed.
Legal Topics
Rectification for Mistake, Pension Scheme Rules, Summary Judgment, Representative Proceedings
Equity Trusts Pensions Rectification for Mistake Pension Scheme Rules Summary Judgment Representative Proceedings

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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Girls' Day School Trust

Claimant

GDST Pension Trustees Limited

First Defendant

Vivienne Chartres

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Rectification of Pension Scheme Deed / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Definitive Deed of the New Scheme should be rectified to reflect the parties' true intention
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment is appropriate for rectification without a hearing
  3. 3 Whether Vivienne Chartres is properly appointed as a representative defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The executed Definitive Deed did not reflect the parties' objectively established common intention, as both GDST and the Trustee intended to execute Version 2, not Version 1A. The documentary evidence was compelling and unchallenged, making rectification appropriate. There was no real prospect of any defence succeeding, justifying summary judgment without a hearing.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for rectification of the Definitive Deed.

Orders

  • The Definitive Deed is to be rectified to reflect the terms of Version 2 as intended by the parties.
  • Order appointing Vivienne Chartres as representative defendant under CPR 19.7(2).