Boliden Tara Mines -v- Cosgrove [2010] IESC 62 (21 December 2010)

Boliden Tara Mines -v- Cosgrove [2010] IESC 62 (21 December 2010)

The Supreme Court found that the evidence was cogent, unanimous, and unchallenged, establishing that the Deed of Amendment did not reflect the common intention of the parties, which was to exclude Income Continuance Plan beneficiaries as of 20 February 1998 from the elimination of integration. The standard of proof required was the balance of probabilities, which was met in this case. Rectification was therefore granted.

Citation
[2010] IESC 62
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Boliden Tara Mines Limited; Defendant: Frank Cosgrove; Defendant: Tadg Farrell; Defendant: Christopher Gorman; Defendant: John Kelly; Defendant: Peter Mullin; Defendant: Alan Broxson; Defendant: Irish Pensions Trust Limited; Defendant (representative): Michael Sheils
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; rectification granted
Legal Topics
Rectification of Instruments, Pension Scheme Amendments, Standard of Proof in Civil Proceedings
Equity Pensions Law Contract Law Rectification of Instruments Pension Scheme Amendments Standard of Proof in Civil 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boliden Tara Mines Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

Frank Cosgrove

Defendant

Tadg Farrell

Defendant

Christopher Gorman

Defendant

John Kelly

Defendant

Peter Mullin

Defendant

Alan Broxson

Defendant

Irish Pensions Trust Limited

Defendant

Michael Sheils

Defendant (representative)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1999 Deed of Amendment to the Tara Mines Pension Plan should be rectified to reflect the true intention of the parties regarding the exclusion of Income Continuance Plan beneficiaries from the elimination of integration for pensionable salary calculation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that the evidence was cogent, unanimous, and unchallenged, establishing that the Deed of Amendment did not reflect the common intention of the parties, which was to exclude Income Continuance Plan beneficiaries as of 20 February 1998 from the elimination of integration. The standard of proof required was the balance of probabilities, which was met in this case. Rectification was therefore granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; rectification granted

Orders

  • Rectification of paragraph D of the Deed of Amendment to insert after the word 'member' where it first appears the words '(other than a member receiving a benefit under the Employers Income Continuance Plan as of the 20th February, 1998)', so as to reflect the true intention of the parties.