Saga Group Ltd & Anor v Paul [2016] EWHC 2344 (Ch) (28 July 2016)

Saga Group Ltd & Anor v Paul [2016] EWHC 2344 (Ch) (28 July 2016)

The court found convincing and objective evidence that both the company and the trustees intended the 2003 Deed to replicate the previous rules using 'Final Pensionable Salary,' and that the use of 'Pensionable Salary' was a drafting mistake. The high evidential threshold for rectification was met, and there was no real prospect of a successful defence. Summary judgment was therefore appropriate, and the deed should be rectified as sought.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2344 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Saga Group Limited; Claimant: Saga Pension Trustee Limited; Defendant: Michelle Paul
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Rectification Claim (chancery Division, High Court) / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the claimants. Rectification of the 2003 Deed ordered.
Legal Topics
Rectification of Deeds, Pension Scheme Rules, Summary Judgment, Representation Orders, Mistake in Legal Documents
Equity Pensions Law Trusts Rectification of Deeds Pension Scheme Rules Summary Judgment Representation Orders 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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saga Group Limited

Claimant

Saga Pension Trustee Limited

Claimant

Michelle Paul

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Rectification Claim (chancery Division, High Court) / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2003 Deed should be rectified to substitute 'Final Pensionable Salary' for 'Pensionable Salary' in rule 57.2 on the ground of common mistake
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment is appropriate for rectification in this context
  3. 3 Whether the hearing should be in public or private

Ratio Decidendi

The court found convincing and objective evidence that both the company and the trustees intended the 2003 Deed to replicate the previous rules using 'Final Pensionable Salary,' and that the use of 'Pensionable Salary' was a drafting mistake. The high evidential threshold for rectification was met, and there was no real prospect of a successful defence. Summary judgment was therefore appropriate, and the deed should be rectified as sought.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the claimants. Rectification of the 2003 Deed ordered.

Orders

  • Rectification of the 2003 Deed by substituting 'Final Pensionable Salary' for 'Pensionable Salary' in rule 57.2.
  • Second claimant appointed as representative of all persons with an interest in rectification being granted.