University of New England School of Law TOPIC: Rectification of Documents: Removing Unnecessary Complexity A Dissertation submitted by John Patrick Tarrant, SJD For the award of Doctor of Philosophy June 2017 Page | 1 ABSTRACT Within the equitable doctrine of rectification, a distinction between common or mutual mistake and unilateral mistake is currently adopted by courts, litigants and scholars. Based on this distinction the focus of a court is to identify who made a mistake and who had knowledge of any mistake. This approach is unhelpful and has led to unnecessary complexity which has been identified by judges and scholars in several recent cases in England and Australia. In addition, the boundary between common law construction and the equitable doctrine of rectification has become less clear. To address the complexity of the law and the uncertain boundary between construction and rectification this thesis examines the scope of the common law approach to construction, identifies the current law relating to when rectification will be granted, outlines in what ways is it difficult to reconcile the current case law, and explains where the law of rectification went wrong. After addressing those matters the thesis explains how the case law on the equitable doctrine of rectification needs to be restated, in accordance with principles established in earlier case law, so that the law is coherent and principled. This provides a comprehensive solution to the uncertainty and complexity in the law of rectification. The solution includes arguing that the distinction between common or mutual mistake and unilateral mistake should be rejected and that the correct distinction is between two different types of mistakes: mistakes made in the recording of agreements and mistakes made during the formation of agreements. In addition, courts in recent decades have focused on the intention of the parties rather than on agreements made by contracting parties. It is argued that a focus on the type of mistake made, and a focus on agreements rather than intentions, will remove the current complexity and uncertainty in the law of rectification that has emerged in recent cases. Page | 2 CERTIFICATION OF DISSERTATION I certify that the ideas, analyses and conclusions reported in this dissertation are entirely my own effort, except where otherwise acknowledged. I also certify that the work is original and has not been previously submitted for any other award, except where otherwise acknowledged. 9 June 2017 _______________________________ ______________________ Signature of Candidate Date Page | 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I have several people to thank in connection with my research that has led to the submission of this thesis. I thank my supervisors, Dr Same Varayudej and Professor Michael Stuckey, for their time, diligence, encouragement and constructive feedback. I would like to acknowledge the supervision provided by Professor Eilis Magner up until her untimely death on 14 July 2014. I first met Professor Magner when I commenced law studies at the University of New England in July 2000. She was always an inspiration and a key factor in my decision to undertake this research at the University of New England. I thank Anthony Robinson for helpful and constructive feedback on an earlier draft of this thesis. Finally, I would like to thank my wife Helen Tao-Ni Tarrant for her constant support and encouragement. John Tarrant Sydney June 2017 Page | 4 Please be advised that this thesis contains chapters which have been either published or submitted for publication. Earlier versions of the following chapters have been retained in this version of the thesis: Chapter 1 Construction as a means of corrective interpretation Chapter 2 Historical development of the equitable doctrine of rectification Chapter 3 Three fundamental principles of rectification Chapter 4 Rectification for mistakes in recording agreements Chapter 5 Rectification for mistakes made during the formation of an agreement Chapter 6 Rectification for fraud Downloaded from [email protected], the institutional research repository of the University of New England at Armidale, NSW Australia. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... 2 CERTIFICATION OF DISSERTATION.................................................................................. 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... 5 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 7 A Background .................................................................................................................... 7 B The complexity of the law and the significance of the thesis ...................................... 11 C Purpose of the research and key research questions .................................................... 13 D Statement of the thesis arguments................................................................................ 15 E Research methodology and limitations of the scope of the thesis ............................... 17 F Structure of the thesis................................................................................................... 17 I CONSTRUCTION AS A MEANS OF CORRECTIVE INTERPRETATION .............. 28 A Distinction between construction and rectification...................................................... 28 B Correction of minor errors ........................................................................................... 33 1 Misnomers.................................................................................................................... 33 2 Plain and palpable mistakes and manifest errors ......................................................... 43 3 Supplying missing words ............................................................................................. 46 4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 47 C Correction of more significant errors ........................................................................... 48 1 Meaningless terms can be ignored ............................................................................... 48 2 Improbable results including absurdities and inconsistencies ..................................... 50 3 Lacking commercial sense ........................................................................................... 55 4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 67 D Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 67 II HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE EQUITABLE DOCTRINE OF RECTIFICATION ................................................................................................................... 69 A Introduction .................................................................................................................. 69 B Requirement for a common or mutual mistake............................................................ 69 C Rectification allowed for some unilateral mistakes ..................................................... 75 D The initial requirement of an antecedent agreement .................................................... 80 E Requirement for a continuing common intention or continuing agreement ................ 94 F Categories of rectification in Equity ............................................................................ 96 G Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 98 III THREE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF RECTIFICATION .......................... 100 A Introduction ................................................................................................................ 100 B Rectification is concerned with agreements .............................................................. 101 C Subjective or objective intention ............................................................................... 105 1 Objective approach confirmed in England ................................................................ 107 2 Objective approach is consistent with a focus on agreements ................................... 114 3 The Australian Approach ........................................................................................... 122 4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 131 Page | 5 D Expressed in outward acts .......................................................................................... 132 E Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 146 IV RECTIFICATION FOR MISTAKES IN RECORDING AGREEMENTS .................. 147 A Introduction ................................................................................................................ 147 B Comparing what has been agreed with what has been recorded ............................... 148 C An agreement to a term may be presumed from the context ....................................