IBM United Kingdom Pensions Trust Limited v IBM United Kingdom Holdings Limited and Others
The judge upheld the IBM Pension Plan trustee's claim to rectify the 1983 deed and rules, and all subsequent deeds, to include wording allowing active members to retire between the ages of 60-63 without employer consent.
The judge re-emphasised that the test for rectification required a common continuing intention from all relevant parties that could be established objectively rather than subjectively. Even though subsequent deeds repeated the error this did not defeat the rectification claim, as it could be established (i) that the mistake had not been spotted by the parties and (ii) there was no evidence that the parties intentions had altered. IBM's argument that booklets setting out the incorrect approach had created a contractual counterclaim with respect to new joiners failed on the basis that it could not be established that booklets of themselves had amounted to contractual provisions that were accepted by the new joiners.
The case is further proof that rectification is a viable remedy to correct mistakes in pension scheme documents, provided the parties can show compelling evidence of continuing common intention. It is also helpful to have a case that shows that repeating the error in a new deed will not defeat a rectification argument so long as there was no intention to change the position.
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.
