ARTICLE
10 December 2024

Supreme Court Judgment Considers Scope Of Equitable Rectification

NR
Norton Rose Fulbright Hong Kong

Contributor

Norton Rose Fulbright provides a full scope of legal services to the world’s preeminent corporations and financial institutions. The global law firm has more than 3,000 lawyers advising clients across more than 50 locations worldwide, including London, Houston, New York, Toronto, Mexico City, Hong Kong, Sydney and Johannesburg, covering Europe, the United States, Canada, Latin America, Asia, Australia, Africa and the Middle East. With its global business principles of quality, unity and integrity, Norton Rose Fulbright is recognized for its client service in key industries, including financial institutions; energy, infrastructure and resources; technology; transport; life sciences and healthcare; and consumer markets.

The Supreme Court confirmed that rectification applies to collective agreements impacting individual employment contracts, with broader implications for statutory tribunals like tax and pensions oversight bodies.
United Kingdom Employment and HR

On November 13, 2024, a Supreme Court judgment confirmed that the equitable remedy of "rectification" is available for collective agreements, even though they are usually not legally enforceable.

Rectification is an equitable remedy used to correct mistakes in legal documents so that they reflect the intentions of the parties. The remedy is available only if the original document inaccurately reflects the parties' agreement. Rectification does not create new rights or obligations but allows the document to be amended to express the actual agreement.

In National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive T/A Nexus [2024], the Supreme Court held that a collective bargaining agreement could be rectified even though it was not a legally enforceable contract. Rectification could, in principle, apply to a collective agreement if it affected the rights or obligations of others (such as employees) through incorporation into individual contracts of employment.

The Supreme Court's decision that the Employment Tribunal, whilst it had no power to make a rectification order, could treat a document as having been rectified on the basis of the principle that "equity can treat as done that which ought to have been done".

This has potentially wide-ranging consequences for other statutory tribunals, including tax tribunals and the Pensions Ombudsman.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More