Rectification—the key cases for pension lawyers
Produced in partnership with David Gallagher of Fieldfisher LLP
Rectification—the key cases for pension lawyers

The following Pensions guidance note Produced in partnership with David Gallagher of Fieldfisher LLP provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Rectification—the key cases for pension lawyers
  • Lansing Linde v Alber
  • AMP (UK) v Barker
  • Gallaher v Gallaher
  • Scania v Wager
  • Smithson v Hamilton re Siemens
  • Chartbrook v Persimmon Homes

This practice note considers the key cases in the rectification of pension scheme documents. While some of the principles have become clear and have been broadly accepted by the courts, in some other areas it is harder to find a consistent line of authority. Cases not involving pension schemes may also be relevant in looking at issues of rectification.

Lansing Linde v Alber

This case was significant for limiting the availability of rectification to cases where a document failed to reflect the intention of the parties.

Lansing Linde was the sponsoring employer of two defined benefit pension schemes. Each of the schemes had equalised benefits between men and women following the Barber case. In each of the schemes the equalisation amendments had, on the face of them, given men and women the right to retire from the age of 60 years without consent. Lansing Linde argued that it had intended to raise the retirement age of women to 65 and provide a discretionary right to an unreduced early retirement pension at age 60 but only where the employer and trustees had expressly consented.

Rimer J held that:

  1. rectification is a discretionary equitable remedy which is available to correct the manner in which a transaction is recorded in a written instrument

  2. it is not a remedy which is available to change the transaction