FSHC v. GLAS Trust Corp., [2019] EWCA Civ 1361

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

ABC Investments and XYZ Bank entered a complex security agreement providing for certain common shares to be held as collateral. Soon after, ABC discovered that the final document also released XYZ’s charge over a separate piece of valuable land, which ABC claims was never intended by either party. Both sides recognized the need for additional securities on this land if certain defaults occurred, but the final contract lacked explicit references to preserve the land’s protection. ABC now seeks to correct the agreement, arguing there was a clear and enduring mutual intention that the land would remain fully secured. XYZ contends the evidence for a shared understanding is insufficient and lacks strong documentary support.


Which of the following statements best explains the legal reasoning the court will likely apply in deciding whether correction for mutual error is warranted?

Introduction

Correction is a legal fix that changes a written document to match the real goals of the parties. It applies when the document does not correctly show an earlier agreement due to a mistake. A main condition for correction is showing a lasting shared goal. This means proving both parties had the same goal, which the document did not include. Showing this shared goal, especially in claims of mutual error, involves significant factual difficulties. The case of FSHC Group Holdings Limited v GLAS Trust Corporation Limited [2019] EWCA Civ 1361 shows these difficulties clearly.

The Facts of FSHC Group Holdings

The case involved a detailed financial agreement about loan changes. FSHC Group Holdings Limited (FSHC) tried to fix a deed of release, arguing it wrongly removed protection over certain assets that should have stayed. FSHC claimed that both parties, including GLAS Trust Corporation Limited (GLAS), meant to keep this protection and that the deed’s mistake showed a mutual error.

The Requirement of Strong Evidence

The Court of Appeal highlighted the strict level of proof needed for correction based on mutual error. Evidence must be clear, factual, and certain. Unclear or partial claims about the parties' goals are not enough. The court said evidence must show, with high certainty, that the document does not match the real shared goal of the parties. This strict rule reflects the serious effect of changing a written agreement.

Objective versus Subjective Intention

The Court of Appeal stated that correction relies on the observable shared goal – what a fair observer would decide the parties agreed to, based on their actions and exchanges. While evidence of a party’s own view of the agreement may be considered, it is not final. The court looks for factual proof of agreement over private beliefs.

Difficulties in Showing a Mutual Error

FSHC showed the real issues in establishing mutual error. Parties often have conflicting memories, especially in detailed business agreements. Also, a lack of clear records showing the claimed shared goal weakens a correction claim. The Court of Appeal noted that later actions conflicting with the claimed goal add more problems. In FSHC, the court found the evidence not strong enough to show a mutual error, deciding that FSHC’s evidence focused on their own position, not a proven shared goal with GLAS.

The Role of Pre-Contractual Talks

The Court of Appeal explained how pre-contractual talks can support proof of shared goals. While such evidence is allowed, its worth depends on the situation. Direct pre-contractual records showing a specific agreement are strong. However, unclear or broken exchanges are less helpful. The court advised against depending too much on pre-contractual talks, especially when the final agreement differs from earlier versions. In FSHC, these talks did not properly support changing the final deed of release.

Conclusion

The FSHC ruling confirms the strict proof needed to establish mutual error for correction. Claimants must provide clear, factual, and certain evidence of a shared goal the document fails to show. Private views or partial pre-contractual talks are usually not enough. This case shows the need to carefully record agreements and ensure written terms match the parties’ real shared goals. The decision highlights the difficulties in seeking correction for mutual error and the need for strong evidence. The judgment shows the courts’ priority on keeping written agreements while allowing correction where proof is clear. The rules in FSHC give practical advice for business parties, stressing clear communication and exact drafting to avoid disputes over correction. Cases like FSHC help explain standards for contract interpretation and legal fixes. The decision strengthens the link between the formal written agreement and the parties’ proven goals, further detailing the legal conditions for correction.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal