Smithson & Ors v Hamilton

Smithson & Ors v Hamilton

Neither the Hastings-Bass principle nor equitable relief for mistake applies to set aside rule 3.5.2.1 of the pension scheme, as the rule was essentially the act of the employer, not the trustees, and the trustees' fiduciary duties did not require them to correct errors detrimental only to the employer. The claim for rectification by the back door is not permissible, and the counterclaim fails as the adoption of the normal retirement age and the Definitive Deed and Rules were validly executed.

Parties
Claimant: David Smithson; Claimant: Ranjit Ramnani; Claimant: Martin Stevenson; Claimant: Miles Barnard; Claimant: Jane Williams; Claimant: Siemens Building Technologies Limited; Claimant: Siemens Building Technologies FE Limited; Claimant: Siemens Plc; Defendant: David Hamilton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim and counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Hastings Bass Principle, Rectification, Mistake in Legal Documents, Equitable Relief, Pension Scheme Rules, Fiduciary Duties, Equalisation of Retirement Age, Barber Window
Trusts Pensions Equity Contract Hastings Bass Principle Rectification Mistake in Legal Documents Equitable Relief +4 more

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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Smithson

Claimant

Ranjit Ramnani

Claimant

Martin Stevenson

Claimant

Miles Barnard

Claimant

Jane Williams

Claimant

Siemens Building Technologies Limited

Claimant

Siemens Building Technologies FE Limited

Claimant

Siemens Plc

Claimant

David Hamilton

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether rule 3.5.2.1 of the pension scheme rules can be set aside under the Hastings-Bass principle
  2. 2 Whether rule 3.5.2.1 can be set aside for mistake in equity
  3. 3 Whether the adoption of a normal retirement age of 65 was void or liable to be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

Neither the Hastings-Bass principle nor equitable relief for mistake applies to set aside rule 3.5.2.1 of the pension scheme, as the rule was essentially the act of the employer, not the trustees, and the trustees' fiduciary duties did not require them to correct errors detrimental only to the employer. The claim for rectification by the back door is not permissible, and the counterclaim fails as the adoption of the normal retirement age and the Definitive Deed and Rules were validly executed.

Court Disposition

Claim and counterclaim dismissed