FORTHCOMING CHANGES: The Information Commission’s Office (ICO) published draft guidance on recruitment and selection, which was open for consultation until 5 March 2024. That guidance remains under review due to the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, see the ICO employment information page. For more information, see Practice Note: The UK GDPR and DPA 2018: key data protection issues for employment lawyers—Information Commission’s Office (ICO) guidance. This Practice Note will be updated to reflect the updated ICO guidance once it has been finalised. This Checklist provides an overview of the steps to take and issues to consider when recruiting an employee or worker, including data protection issues under Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679, UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018), using a recruitment agency, pre-employment checks and registering for PAYE (income tax and National Insurance contributions). It also highlights relevant Practice Notes and Precedent materials. It is not aimed at clients but may be adapted for that audience. Responsibility for recruitment • If the employer does not have a dedicated personnel

This Practice Note is based on an original work by Ben Sheldrick of Magrath Sheldrick LLP. Fair recruitment processes can help employers limit the risk of successful discrimination claims being made against them. An employer is not prevented from hiring the best person for the job by any legislation or guidance, but it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an applicant at any stage of the recruitment process. An employer must always be mindful of the fact that every applicant should be treated fairly throughout the entire recruitment process. Immigration and employment law issues relating to illegal working should be addressed together throughout all stages of the employment relationship, from recruitment to the termination of employment. Therefore, employers should ensure Human Resources (HR) documentation, and policies and procedures deal with these issues from the outset. Whether an organisation has a dedicated personnel or HR team, or devolves recruitment responsibilities to line managers and supervisors, it is important that anyone involved in recruitment is aware of the law and principles of good practice in

Alteration of the Register of Title which involves the correction of a mistake and which prejudicially affects the title of a registered proprietor.

Corporate analysis: In this case the High Court considered a claim for rectification of a share purchase agreement and a disclosure letter based on the principle of common mistake and determined the effect of rectification on both contractual documents.

Pensions analysis: Mr Justice Trower has granted rectification of the Univar Company Pension Scheme (1978) in the first pension rectification claim decided after a full trial since the landmark decision of the Court of Appeal in FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v GLAS Trust Corp Ltd. The judgment provides useful guidance about how the restated test for rectification in FSHC applies in the context of pension scheme documents. Written by Michael Furness QC and Tim Matthewson, barristers, at Wilberforce Chambers.

Private Client analysis: Craig Swart, partner at Dickinson Gleeson, discusses the practical implications of the judgment in Representation of Virtue Trustees (Switzerland) AG and Anor re The C Trust where the Jersey Royal Court accepted that the trust deed did not reflect the settlor’s true intentions owing to a genuine mistake made when a last-minute drafting change was implemented, and confirmed the test for rectification.

STOP PRESS: On 1 October 2026 a newly formed Business and Property Division replaced the Chancery Division—see News Analysis: The new Business and Property Division of the High Court. This Precedent contains references to, and information derived from, the Chancery Guide. It is understood

STOP PRESS: On 1 October 2026 a newly formed Business and Property Division replaced the Chancery Division—see News Analysis: The new Business and Property Division of the High Court. This Precedent contains references to, and information derived from, the Chancery Guide. It is understood that a Business and Property Division Guide is being drafted and it is assumed this will replace the Chancery Guide. Existing links to the Chancery Guide will remain in content until a replacement

Claimant: [initial and surname]:1st: [date] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS [OF ENGLAND AND WALES OR IN [location]] PROPERTY, TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST (ChD) Claim No: [x] [x] and [x] [x] (a child by [name] his/her litigation friend) etc... _____________________________________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [x] _____________________________________ I, [name], of [address/workplace], [occupation], [ WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS ]: 1 I am the Claimant in this action and[ position under the trust] of the trust

Planning analysis: This claim was issued under CPR Part 8 pursuant to section 14(b) of the Commons Registration Act 1965 (CRA 1965) to rectify the village greens register to remove the land used by the school for sports and by the public for recreation. The land was registered contrary to the village green inspector’s recommendation. The claim relied upon six grounds, including statutory incompatibility and the use being contentious and not as of right by reason of signs on the land and statements made by the claimant contesting the unrestricted public use. The judge concluded that the land did not meet the statutory criteria in section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 (CA 2006) and that it would be just in the circumstances to remove the land from the register. Written by Stephen Morgan, barrister at Landmark Chambers Chambers.

Rectification is an equitable remedy by which the court can correct an error of expression where a written document does not match the parties' intention. It is available only in relation to written contracts and other documents. An oral agreement cannot be rectified. This Practice Note explains the principles applicable in considering whether an error can be corrected by interpretation rather than rectification and the elements of a claim for rectification for mutual or common mistake. For more information in respect of a mistake made by one party, see Practice Note: Rectification—unilateral mistake. Interpretation or rectification? The starting point in considering a claim for the correction of an error is to ask whether the error can be solved by means of interpretation rather than rectification. At common law, rectification is not available and so the only way in which an error of expression can be corrected at common law is by applying the ordinary rules of interpretation. As a matter of principle, the equitable remedy of rectification ought not to be granted unless there is no suitable alternative

This Practice Note considers the key cases in the rectification of pension scheme documents. A developing line of authority has established relatively clear principles, although judicial practice can still vary in the level of practical solutions applied by the courts. 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