Ballard & Ors v Buzzard [2024] EWHC 2765 (Ch) (04 November 2024)

Ballard & Ors v Buzzard [2024] EWHC 2765 (Ch) (04 November 2024)

The court found that the evidence established a common intention by the Trustees and the College to effect the amendments in the SAAs, that the signature block defect was a mistake, and that rectification should be ordered to reflect Mr Beauchamp's dual capacity. The 2006 Deed was also rectified to reflect the intended pension increase provisions.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2765 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Sarah Margaret Ballard; Claimant: William James Alexander Bennett; Claimant: Deborah Blackmore; Claimant: John Francis Nugee; Claimant: Radley College; Defendant: Mr Jonathan Buzzard
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (trusts/pensions) / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed. Rectification granted.
Legal Topics
Rectification of Trust Documents, Pension Scheme Amendments, Execution Formalities, Representative Proceedings
Trusts Pensions Equity Rectification of Trust Documents Pension Scheme Amendments Execution Formalities Representative Proceedings

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sarah Margaret Ballard

Claimant

William James Alexander Bennett

Claimant

Deborah Blackmore

Claimant

John Francis Nugee

Claimant

Radley College

Claimant

Mr Jonathan Buzzard

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (trusts/pensions) / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Scheme Amendment Authorities (SAAs) were validly executed under the Scheme's amendment power
  2. 2 Whether the 2006 Deed failed to reflect the parties' common intention and should be rectified
  3. 3 Whether the court should order rectification of the signature blocks and the 2006 Deed

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence established a common intention by the Trustees and the College to effect the amendments in the SAAs, that the signature block defect was a mistake, and that rectification should be ordered to reflect Mr Beauchamp's dual capacity. The 2006 Deed was also rectified to reflect the intended pension increase provisions.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Rectification granted.

Orders

  • Rectification of the signature blocks on the 2001 and 2005 SAAs to reflect Mr Beauchamp's capacity as Trustee and Principal Employer.
  • Rectification of the 2006 Deed to reflect the intended pension increase provisions.