Mistake meaning

Existence and validity of trusts Provincial Equity Finance Ltd v Dines (née Breda) [2023] EWHC 103 (Ch) News Analysis: A literary epigraph—‘By prosperous voyages I often made… and the great care of goods at random left’—introduces a consideration of resulting trusts and the scope of express trusts. The decision underscores the practical obstacles in proving a resulting trust where a disorganised deceased ran bank accounts for mixed ends, and confirms that an express trust can override the presumption of a resulting trust even if the contributor of funds is not a party to the express trust. Author: Nicholas Holland, McDermott Will & Emery UK LLP Jurisdiction: England & Wales Attorney General v Zedra Fiduciary Services (UK) Ltd and others [2022] EWHC 102 (Ch) News Analysis: The court sanctioned a cy près scheme for a £600m charitable trust to be used towards reducing the National Debt, addressing the suitable application of the National Fund. The judgment considers...

How has the exemption available for controllers under the GDPR in relation to liability to compensate data subjects changed? Under the earlier Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (Article 23(2)), where a person was entitled to damages from a controller due to unlawful processing, the controller could rely on a potential exemption if it was not responsible for the event that caused the loss. Recital 55 offered two illustrations of situations for which the controller would not bear responsibility: a mistake by the data subject, and a case of force majeure The language of these provisions lacked clarity, and the concept of ‘force majeure’ has no consistent definition across EU legal systems (it does not even carry a settled meaning in English law, depending heavily on contractual wording). Unsurprisingly, this carve-out, and the reference to force majeure, was therefore loosely carried across into national implementing legislation. For example, the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998) gave a controller a defence in claims for compensation...

In this issue: Commercial real estate finance Leasing property Property management Residential tenancies Statutory compliance Property in Wales Additional property updates this week LexTalk®Property: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers Commercial real estate finance Deliberate and unauthorised deed alteration renders legal charge void In Boult v Together Personal Finance Ltd [2026] EWHC 809 (Ch), the Chancery Division overturned the County Court at Cardiff, finding that the rule in Pigot’s Case rendered a legal charge void. The appeal turned on whether a unilateral, material change to a deed made after execution—without the other party’s knowledge or consent—invalidates it under the 400‑year‑old Pigot principle. The respondent, Together Personal Finance Limited, had lent money to the appellant, Ms Myranna Boult, secured against her property, and later commenced possession proceedings. Ms Boult maintained that the charge had been amended in manuscript post‑execution to incorporate an additional property without her...

Carbon Six Engineering Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 177 (TC) In 2022, HMRC issued determinations pursuant to regulation 80 of the Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/2682) and section 8 of the Social Security (Transfer of Functions) Act 1999, in respect of income tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs) it considered due from the appellant, Carbon Six Engineering Ltd. The accompanying letter, notifying the issue of those determinations, asserted that the additional tax and NICs arose because the appellant was a managed services company (MSC), and identified its managed services company provider (MSC provider) as Churchill Knight & Associates (CKA). In truth, the appellant had never entered into any contract with CKA or otherwise engaged with it. It had, however, dealt with The App Accounting Group (TAAG), which HMRC also believed to be a MSC provider. Although HMRC did not formally acknowledge the erroneous reference to CKA, the mistake was corrected in correspondence between the parties on 27 October 2022. The company appealed the determinations...

Prepared in collaboration with 4 Pump Court, this Practice Note condenses the choices open to a party aiming to stop enforcement of an adjudication decision, while also signposting grounds the court has dismissed or rejected. The courts adopt a pro-enforcement stance towards adjudication outcomes and, as set out below, the instances in which a decision will not be enforced (or a stay of execution will be ordered) are tightly constrained. Summary of grounds for resisting enforcement The court will refrain from enforcing an adjudicator’s decision, or grant a stay of execution, only in narrowly defined situations: the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction (see Practice Note: Grounds for a jurisdictional challenge in an adjudication) there was a serious or material breach of natural justice in the adjudication (see Practice Note: Breach of natural justice in adjudication) the referring party is insolvent and/or there is a risk of dissipation of the awarded sum (see Practice Note: Adjudication—resisting enforcement using a stay of execution) fraud occurred during...

Slip rule An adjudicator may, within a reasonable period after handing down their decision, put right any accidental error or omission. Commonly described as the ‘slip rule’, it operates where the adjudicator’s mistake is an inadvertent slip that fails to capture their first intention. Though this principle was implied by common law in the absence of any contrary agreement, it is now set out expressly in section 108(3A) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996). Section 108(3A) was introduced by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and applies to contracts entered into on or after 1 October 2011 in England and Wales, and on or after 1 November 2011 in Scotland. Under HGCRA 1996, s 108(3A), a contract must contain a written term permitting the adjudicator to correct their decision so as to remove a clerical or typographical error arising by accident or omission...

Limitation periods Limitation periods describe the window within which a claim must be issued. The rules are contained in the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), which sets out different time limits for various causes of action. In an insolvency setting, claims are commonly grouped into three types: actions founded on a 'speciality' carry a 12-year period. Speciality claims include those arising from a statutory cause of action and typically concern recovery of property, such as setting aside a transaction in insolvency where the remedy is not simply the payment of money claims to recover a sum of money under statute have a six-year period claims for which no limitation period applies A limitation clock will usually start on the date the cause of action accrues. That position applies where the claim stems from the debtor’s own cause of action. For instance, if an office-holder seeks to recoup unlawful dividends for a company, time runs from the date of each unlawful distribution,...

This Agreement is dated [ date ] Parties [ insert name of the pursuer ], a company registered in Scotland (no [ insert company number ]), whose [ registered office OR principal place of business ] is at [ insert address ] (the Pursuer) [ and ] [ ; ] [ insert name of defender ], a company registered in Scotland (no [ insert company number ]), whose [ registered office OR principal place of business ] is at [ insert address ] (the Defender). Each being a Party and, together, the Parties. Whereas (A) [ Insert details of the background to the dispute eg ‘The Parties entered into a contract for the supply of certain goods etc ]. (B) A dispute has emerged between the Parties regarding [ insert details of the dispute ] (the Dispute). (C) [ Proceedings were raised by the Pursuer against the Defender on [ date ] by way of [ Summons OR...

In such circumstances, the basis for relief would more probably be mistake or misrepresentation, rather than a breach of contract on these facts...