Industrial Acoustics Company Ltd. v Crowhurst & Ors

Industrial Acoustics Company Ltd. v Crowhurst & Ors

The evidence demonstrates that both the Company and the Trustee had a common continuing intention, objectively established, that the 1995 resolution equalising retirement ages should remain effective. The 1998 rules and 1999 resolution failed to reflect this due to a mistake. The legal tests for rectification are satisfied and the rules should be rectified accordingly.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Industrial Acoustics Company Limited; Defendant/respondent (trustee): Mr Geoffrey Crowhurst; Defendant/respondent (trustee): Mr Murray Budd; Defendant/respondent (trustee): Ms Jodie Everett; Defendant/respondent (deferred Member/representative): Mr Russell Hagerty
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil (rectification of Pension Scheme Rules) / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted; rectification and representation orders made
Legal Topics
Rectification of Trust Deed, Pension Scheme Rules, Common Continuing Intention, Summary Judgment, Representation Orders
Equity Trusts Pensions Law Rectification of Trust Deed Pension Scheme Rules Common Continuing Intention Summary Judgment Representation Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Industrial Acoustics Company Limited

Claimant/applicant

Mr Geoffrey Crowhurst

Defendant/respondent (trustee)

Mr Murray Budd

Defendant/respondent (trustee)

Ms Jodie Everett

Defendant/respondent (trustee)

Mr Russell Hagerty

Defendant/respondent (deferred Member/representative)

Procedural Posture

Civil (rectification of Pension Scheme Rules) / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1998 rules and 1999 resolution of the pension scheme should be rectified to reflect the parties' common continuing intention regarding normal retirement date for female members
  2. 2 Whether the legal tests for rectification are satisfied on the evidence
  3. 3 Whether a representation order should be made for affected scheme members

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence demonstrates that both the Company and the Trustee had a common continuing intention, objectively established, that the 1995 resolution equalising retirement ages should remain effective. The 1998 rules and 1999 resolution failed to reflect this due to a mistake. The legal tests for rectification are satisfied and the rules should be rectified accordingly.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted; rectification and representation orders made

Orders

  • Rectification of the definition of 'Normal Retiring Date' in the 1998 rules and 1999 resolution to read: 'Normal Retiring Date means the 65th birthday'
  • Mr Russell Hagerty appointed as representative for members opposed to rectification