Russell v RCR Tomlinson Ltd

In the case of Russell v RCR Tomlinson Ltd, the plaintiff sought to have a clause in his employment contract rectified on the basis that it did not reflect the common intention of the parties. The contract in question contained a clause that limited the plaintiff's right to seek damages for loss of future earnings in the event of termination of his employment. The plaintiff argued that the clause was inconsistent with the parties' common intention, which was to allow for full compensation for such losses. The court was required to determine whether the principles of equitable rectification applied in this case and whether the subjective intentions of the parties were relevant in assessing whether the contract terms reflected the common intention.

The court held that the principles of contractual construction and equitable rectification turn on their own facts and that the subjective intentions of the parties are not relevant in determining whether the contract terms reflect the common intention. The court further held that the plaintiff had not established a sufficient connection between the common intention and the terms of the contract, and therefore, rectification was not available. The court also noted that in order to succeed in a claim for misleading or deceptive conduct, the plaintiff must show evidence of loss, and that the assessment of damages requires consideration of all relevant factors, including any earlier payment made to the plaintiff.

The court found that the plaintiff had not established a sufficient connection between the common intention and the terms of the contract, and therefore, rectification was not available. The court also held that the plaintiff had not shown evidence of loss in order to succeed in a claim for misleading or deceptive conduct. The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for breach of contract in the amount of $110,000, which reflected the difference between the amount the plaintiff would have earned had he continued in employment and the amount he actually received. The court held that the earlier payment made to the plaintiff should be taken into account in assessing the damages, and that the amount of damages was reduced accordingly.