In its judgment, the Court of Appeal conducted a thorough review of the case law and stated that “the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to correct errors in written acts can be traced by rectification of its roots in canonical and Roman laws.” The Court also considered matters of public policy and injustice before concluding. This decision was appealed by the defendant (the “safety officer” because, although the judge`s findings are not in question, the review of the correction is only objective and, on that basis, an objective observer would have concluded that the parties intended to make the additional obligations for the fsHC mandatory. In the end, the Court of Appeal found that Lord Hoffman`s charge at Chartbrook did not accurately lequently the law and that a party, in order to make a request for rectification, had to prove that the document also did not take effect: comment that judgment serves as a useful clarification of the rectification law because of a frequent error related to significantly contradictory jurisprudence in this area. Subject to the Supreme Court`s decision, there are now clearly defined tests that must be applied by the courts when considering this issue. The Court of Appeal`s decision at the beginning of the Court of Appeal`s decision was found that there was “uncertainty and dissatisfaction” in the Rectification Act for a frequent error – particularly according to the earlier findings of Lord Hoffman in Chartbrook Ltd/Persimmon Homes Ltd2, in which he felt that the test was entirely objective and that the parties` actual subjective intentions were not significant. It should be noted, however, that this clarification of the law does not mean that rectification will now be easier to obtain. Indeed, the opposite is true: in the absence of a previous contract, the applicant must not only prove that he had a particular intention, but that the defendant shared that intention and that the parties agreed to share that intention. Given the difficulties of evidence in establishing a common error, an applicant may wish to consider the following practical steps in future transactions: in 2016, when the security documents were audited, it became clear that a transfer of the benefit of a shareholder project (since it was the guarantee that should have existed) had not been carried out. In order to correct this omission, FSHC entered into acts (the “deeds”) to adhere to two existing security agreements, although it later emerged that these agreements were in force in terms of security and that HSF imposed additional and heavy obligations. FSHC filed an application for rectification by Part 8. Although GLAS Trust Corporation Ltd was not the original security officer (and therefore did not participate in the original claim), it was included in the litigation after its appointment earlier this year. Finally, this decision is a useful reminder that the parties entering into contracts must scrupulously respect the text of the document (and all other documents to which the contract refers) in order to ensure that the explicit rights and obligations set out in the treaty are generally consistent with their conception of the agreement.