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 only available for written contracts and other documents (not oral agreements). This Practice Note explains when a solicitor is under a duty to point out unilateral drafting errors and when a unilateral mistake is simply an error of judgment. For rectification for common mistake, see Practice Note: Rectification—mutual mistake. When is rectification available? Rectification for unilateral mistake is available where one party makes a mistake in a document, the other party is aware of the error in their favour, and unconscionably takes advantage of it. Three elements must be present: • by the claimant’s mistake the agreement did not give effect to their subjective intention at the time of execution • there was no mistake by the defendant • the defendant was aware of the claimant’s mistake at the time of execution, and there was unconscionable behaviour by inducing execution or by standing by and allowing it In Littman v Aspen

Family analysis: The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against a judge’s refusal to recuse herself after she was overheard making pejorative comments about a party during a break in a Zoom hearing, and brings the perils of a remote hearing into sharp focus. Tahmina Rahman, barrister at 1 GC Family Law, examines the issues.

Claimant Claimant's history Does the claimant have a history of making personal injury claims? This can be checked through the Claims Underwriting Exchange (CUE) database, which tracks all claims made against an insurer. Nature of the injuries Are they consistent with and in proportion to the severity of the accident? High occupancy While high occupancy (ie multiple passengers) on its own would not indicate fraud, it could be a factor to be taken into account when there have been accusations of an induced or staged accident. No reason to stop If the defendant insists the claimant’s vehicle stopped for no reason, it could indicate an induced accident. Late reported claim While claimants usually have three years to bring a claim, if a claim is presented to an insurer over six months post-accident without any viable explanation as to why (eg the claimant has had an extended hospital admission, or their insurer had difficulty tracing the defendant’s insurer), then there is an enhanced possibility the claim has been farmed (ie generated, fabricated, solicited

Environment analysis: The High Court provided guidance on redacting documents and varying Aarhus costs caps pursuant to CPR 46.27. As to redaction, the High Court held that once proceedings are commenced, documents within court papers which have been redacted must be considered by the redacting party. The court needs assistance as to how to respect the open justice principle and protect any relevant interest, which may be through a pre-action letter, a witness statement, or an application. As to cost caps, the caps in CPR 46.26 are ‘in the nature of a soft presumption’. In deciding whether to allow variation, the central focus is on prohibitive expensiveness of proceedings. There are two alternative routes. Limb (a) is concerned with ‘real word unaffordability’. Limb (b) is where likely costs are objectively unreasonable, having regard to the six factors in CPR 46.27(3)(b). Written by Hannah Taylor, barrister at Cornerstone Barristers.

Masking information in a document to prevent it from being viewed.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This case is another in a number of cases between Mr Hancock and the Promontoria group of companies. In this instance the case dealt with an appeal from both Mr Hancock and Promontoria in relation to two separate judgements given previously relating to a debt that had been assigned to Promontoria by AIB Group (UK) Plc (AIB). Mr Hancock contested that he should be allowed to amend his defences in light of a previous decision which, while being decided in his favour, had found the defences being used in a subsequent case as being without substance. The court rejected Mr Hancock’s application and reinforced the courts’ earlier guidance on heavily redacted documents. The decision will be of interest to other lenders as an example of the extent to which a document can be redacted on the grounds of confidentiality and security, whilst also giving guidance on ensuring mechanical clauses in documents are kept separate from confidential information as much as possible to avoid this issue in future. Written by Kirsten Fleming, managing associate, at Addleshaw Goddard LLP.

MLex: Reddit and Tumblr are video sharing platforms services under Ireland’s Online Safety Code, the Irish High Court has confirmed. The court confirmed earlier decisions taken by Coimisiún na Meán, designating the pair as video-sharing platforms. The regulator said it welcomed the decisions and is committed to using its full range of powers ‘to improve online safety for users in Ireland and across Europe’. The statement follows.

Preference shares which the issuing company reserves the right to redeem. The shares may, or may not have a specific redemption date or dates.

Pursuant to CA 2006, ss 684–686, any limited company having a share capital may issue redeemable shares of any class. However, a public company may only issue redeemable shares if it is authorised to do so by its articles of association. A private company’s articles may exclude or restrict the issue of redeemable shares but need not expressly authorise it. The model articles provide a right for both a private company and a public company to issue redeemable shares. The terms, conditions and manner of redemption may be determined by the directors (if they are authorised to do so), by the articles of association or by a resolution of the company. The resolution may be an ordinary resolution even though it amends the company’s articles of association. Redeemable shares in a limited company may not be redeemed unless they are fully paid.

Crime analysis: Despite widespread feeling that murder is always a complex and unique set of circumstances, UK law continues in its efforts to fit with a particularly historic understanding of the crime. Law Commissioner, David Ormerod QC, explains a possible return of reform to the political agenda, suggesting a simplification that would be to the good of defendants and wider society alike.

The repayment by the borrower of outstanding loan obligations upon the agreed terms with the effect of extinguishing the debt

When a bond is cancelled by repayment to the bondholders of the capital originally lent to the bond issuer.