Blatchford Ltd v Blatchford & Ors [2019] EWHC 2743 (Ch) (24 October 2019)

Blatchford Ltd v Blatchford & Ors [2019] EWHC 2743 (Ch) (24 October 2019)

The evidence demonstrates that neither the Company nor the Trustees intended to alter the benefit structure for Category D members in the 1996 Rules; the drafting error resulted in unintended benefit increases. Rectification is granted to substitute 'lesser' for 'greater' in Rules 39.6.3 and 39.6.4.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2743 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Blatchford Limited (formerly Chas A Blatchford & Sons Limited); Defendant (trustee): Brian Stephen Blatchford; Defendant (trustee): Peter Alan Lewis; Defendant (trustee): Richard Priborsky; Defendant (trustee): Kevin Byrne; Defendant (trustee): Paul Jameson; Defendant (trustee): Zoe Stephens-Truman; Defendant (trustee): Mir Saeed Zahedi; Defendant (representative Beneficiary): Alan Tanner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim / Disposal Hearing
Outcome
Rectification granted
Legal Topics
Rectification of Pension Scheme Rules, Mistake in Trust Deed, Representation Orders, Scheme Administration
Pensions Equity Trusts Rectification of Pension Scheme Rules Mistake in Trust Deed Representation Orders Scheme Administration

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blatchford Limited (formerly Chas A Blatchford & Sons Limited)

Claimant

Brian Stephen Blatchford

Defendant (trustee)

Peter Alan Lewis

Defendant (trustee)

Richard Priborsky

Defendant (trustee)

Kevin Byrne

Defendant (trustee)

Paul Jameson

Defendant (trustee)

Zoe Stephens-Truman

Defendant (trustee)

Mir Saeed Zahedi

Defendant (trustee)

Alan Tanner

Defendant (representative Beneficiary)

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim / Disposal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rules 39.6.3 and 39.6.4 of the 1996 Scheme Rules should be rectified to reflect the parties' true intention
  2. 2 Whether the drafting error resulted in unintended benefit changes for Category D members

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence demonstrates that neither the Company nor the Trustees intended to alter the benefit structure for Category D members in the 1996 Rules; the drafting error resulted in unintended benefit increases. Rectification is granted to substitute 'lesser' for 'greater' in Rules 39.6.3 and 39.6.4.

Court Disposition

Rectification granted

Orders

  • Rules 39.6.3 and 39.6.4 of the 1996 Scheme Rules are rectified to substitute 'lesser' for 'greater' and remove 'if less' as appropriate.
  • Representation order confirmed for Alan Tanner as Representative Beneficiary.