Blatchford Ltd v Blatchford & Ors

Blatchford Ltd v Blatchford & Ors

The evidence established that neither the Company nor the Trustees intended to change the benefit structure for Category D members in 1996, and the drafting error in Rules 39.6.3 and 39.6.4 did not reflect their common intention. The requirements for rectification were met, and the rules should be rectified to substitute 'lesser' for 'greater' and remove 'if less'.

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 (rectification of Pension Scheme Rules) / Judgment After Disposal Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed; rectification granted
Legal Topics
Rectification of Trust Deed, Common Mistake, Pension Scheme Administration, Interpretation of Pension Rules
Pensions Equity Trusts Rectification of Trust Deed Common Mistake Pension Scheme Administration Interpretation of Pension Rules

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
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 (rectification of Pension Scheme Rules) / Judgment After Disposal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rules 39.6.3 and 39.6.4 of the 1996 Rules should be rectified to reflect the parties' common intention
  2. 2 Whether the drafting error constituted a change not intended by the Company and Trustees
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for rectification in pension cases are met

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence established that neither the Company nor the Trustees intended to change the benefit structure for Category D members in 1996, and the drafting error in Rules 39.6.3 and 39.6.4 did not reflect their common intention. The requirements for rectification were met, and the rules should be rectified to substitute 'lesser' for 'greater' and remove 'if less'.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; rectification granted

Orders

  • Rules 39.6.3 and 39.6.4 of the 1996 Rules are rectified to substitute 'lesser' for 'greater' and remove 'if less' with effect from 22 October 1996.