The Court of Appeal has accepted that claims for rectification do not require proof of outward manifestation of accord, at least in some cases.
There are two points of importance in this case.
(1) RECTIFICATION: For many years the Courts and practitioners have widely assumed that a claim for rectification would fail without proof of an “outward manifestation of accord”. The Court of Appeal has now held this is not a distinct legal requirement, but merely an evidential factor in the overall inquiry as to whether or not the party seeking rectification can show the requisite common continuing intention. See Mummery LJ at para 36.
(2) CASE MANAGEMENT: the Court of Appeal was critical of the Court Service and the Recorder for failing to make sufficient time available for (i) the speedy restoration of a part-heard case and (ii) the prompt preparation of a judgment. The Court has issued practical guidance on how a judge should deal with administrative problems of this sort. See Scott Baker LJ at paras 73-78.”
Tim Morshead acted for the Appellant.