header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
12 September 2019 / Julia Petrenko , Edward Peters KC
Issue: 7855 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Correcting past mistakes

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Reducing the role of the reasonable man in a rectification context: Julia Petrenko & Edward Peters on FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd
  • In FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd, the Court of Appeal provided welcome clarification in relation to the requirements which must be satisfied if a written document is to be rectified on the basis of common mistake.
  • In particular, the court clarified that the obiter remarks made by Lord Hoffmann in Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd—that the test for establishing a common intention which was mistakenly not reflected in the written document is objective —do not represent the law.

Rectification is an equitable remedy which applies to written documents which, mistakenly, fail to record what was agreed by the parties. There are two species of rectification: common mistake rectification and unilateral mistake rectification. As regards the former, in brief summary, the claimant must show that:

  • the parties had a common continuing intention, whether or not amounting to an agreement,
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll