Industrial Acoustics Company Ltd. v Crowhurst & Ors [2012] EWHC 1614 (Ch) (15 May 2012)

Industrial Acoustics Company Ltd. v Crowhurst & Ors [2012] EWHC 1614 (Ch) (15 May 2012)

The Company and Trustee had a common continuing intention to equalise retirement ages at 65 for male and female members, and the 1998 rules and 1999 resolution mistakenly failed to reflect this intention. Rectification is warranted as the legal tests for rectification are satisfied.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1614 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Industrial Acoustics Company Limited; Defendant/respondent: Geoffrey Crowhurst; Defendant/respondent: Murray Budd; Defendant/respondent: Jodie Everett; Defendant/respondent: Russell Hagerty
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Summary Judgment and Rectification / Judgment
Outcome
Summary judgment granted; rectification ordered; representation orders made.
Legal Topics
Rectification of Pension Scheme Rules, Common Continuing Intention, Representation Order, Mistake in Legal Documents
Equity Trusts Pensions Rectification of Pension Scheme Rules Common Continuing Intention Representation Order Mistake in Legal Documents

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Industrial Acoustics Company Limited

Claimant/applicant

Geoffrey Crowhurst

Defendant/respondent

Murray Budd

Defendant/respondent

Jodie Everett

Defendant/respondent

Russell Hagerty

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Summary Judgment and Rectification / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1998 rules and 1999 resolution of the retirement benefit scheme should be rectified to reflect the intended normal retirement date for female members
  2. 2 Whether a representation order should be made for members affected by rectification

Ratio Decidendi

The Company and Trustee had a common continuing intention to equalise retirement ages at 65 for male and female members, and the 1998 rules and 1999 resolution mistakenly failed to reflect this intention. Rectification is warranted as the legal tests for rectification are satisfied.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted; rectification ordered; representation orders made.

Orders

  • The 1998 rules of the Scheme are rectified by deleting the definition of 'Normal Retiring Date' and substituting 'Normal Retiring Date means the 65th birthday'.
  • The 1999 resolution is rectified by deleting the definition of 'Normal Retiring Date' and substituting 'Normal Retiring Date means the 65th birthday'.