David E. Grant KC TEP has an extensive chancery and commercial practice with specialist expertise in international commercial work (often with a middle Eastern and/or Indian dimension), pensions, trusts, probate and estates, associated professional negligence and business protection and other related employment work.
He has extensive advocacy experience in all domestic courts up to the Supreme Court, the European Court of Justice, specialist tribunals, foreign courts and arbitrations.
He has a wide range of clients including leading FTSE business and business leaders, international corporations, trustee companies, professional advisers, group claimants, charities and high net worth and other individuals,
David has been recommended in a total of 5 areas in Chambers and Partners and the Legal 500 since 2007 (Chancery Commercial, Pensions, Private Wealth Trusts & Probate, Professional Negligence, Dispute Resolution: Commercial Chancery) and has been described as “consistently outstanding” “absolutely amazing”, a “real expert” a “first rate silk” “a polished advocate with the ear of the court” “a go to practitioner in this area” and “analytical and creative at finding solutions to difficult problems”, “he will do his utmost to find the answer to support the client’s position”.
David has experience in numerous commercial litigation matters including:
Crescent Gas Corporation Ltd v (1) National Iraniaon Oil Company (2) Retirement, Saving and Welfare Fund of Oil Industry Workers [2025] EWCA Civ 1211,[2026] BCC 41, [2024] EWHC 835 (Comm) CL-2022-000383 (listed for hearing in Supreme Court, January 2027)
Claim to enforce $2bn arbitration award by CGC against NIOC (judgment debtor). The decisions to date and forthcoming appeal concern whether commercial property in SW1 (>£100 million) is owned by NIOC and is available for enforcement or whether they property was held on trust by NIOC for the benefit of Retirement, Saving and Welfare fund of Oil Industry Workers.
The appeal turns on the proper construction of s.53(1)(b) Law of Property Act 1925 and, in particular, i) whether an agent can manifest and prove a declaration of trust ii) the test for declaring trusts and iii) the consequences of non-compliance with the statute. This will be the most important and high profile examination of s.53(1)(b) since 1925.
Blackberry Ltd v Optiemus Infracom Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 1004
This is the leading decision on the test for striking out “warehoused” proceedings (where a claimant takes a deliberate decision not to progress proceedings, whether at the outset or at a later stage and whether subject to a contingency or not). In this case, the Deputy Judge at first instance held that the claimant’s deliberate decision to do nothing from late 2020 until 2005 when it issued an application to lift any automatic stay constituted an abuse of process. By a “narrow margin” the judge declined to strike out the claim. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and clarified that, even where Grovit abuse is established, strike out is not automatic or even the presumed response in the absence of compelling reasons. Rather the appropriate response is a matter of judicial discretion.
Cheshire Estate v Blanchfield [2024] EWCA Civ 1317
An important case about what fiduciaries can do when preparing to compete in the future with their principal. The Court of Appeal clarified that it is not automatically a breach of directors’ statutory or fiduciary duties (or employees’ duties of fidelity) to take preparatory steps towards competing with his or her principal, even whilst remaining a director.
HRCKY Ltd v Hard Rock Limited (2) Hard Rock Café International [2025] UKPC
On appeal from the Court of Appeal of Jersey [2024] JCA 069. Appeal by franchisee concerning misrepresentation and, in particular, whether dol par reticence is a principle of customary law in the context of relational contracts.
McGaughey v University Superannuation Scheme Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 873
Milestone judgment concerning a multi-derivative claim by members of a pension scheme against the directors of a trustee company for breach of the statutory and fiduciary duties concerning the valuation of the pension scheme and investment in fossil fuels. The case was listed as one of the Lawyer’s Top Ten Appeals of 2023 and has profound implications for pensions, trusts and company law practice and practitioners. The case raises the intersection of a company law derivative claim and a trusts derivative claim (where beneficiaries of a trust bring a claim when the trustees are disabled or unwilling to do so) and revives the concept of dog-leg claims while calling into question single purpose trust companies.
Dwyer (UK) Franchising Ltd v Fredbar Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 889
The leading case on the enforcement of post-termination restrictive covenants in the franchises context The claimant/appellant franchisor sought to restrain the defendant former franchisee from trading in the exclusive marketing territory contrary to restrictive covenants. The defendants (whom David represented) contended that the contract was voidable for misrepresentation, that the claimant was in fundamental breach of contract and that, even if the post-termination restrictions survive, they are unreasonably wide and, hence, unenforceable. The trial judge held the covenants to be unenforceable. Dwyer appealed to the Court of Appeal who unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that inequality of bargaining power is one of, if not the, most significant factors for determining the reasonableness of a restraint against trade.
Michael Jackson v (1) Michael Pensaville (2) Andrew Brooksbank CL-2022-000188
Claim to set aside a share sale agreement on the grounds of duress or undue influence. David successfully resisted an application in December 2023 to strike out the draft amended particulars of claim.
Citadel Securities v Cologlu 2021
Claim for £100m in the London Court of International Arbitration. The claimant high frequency quantitative trading company claimed that the defendant misused confidential information when he provided a competitor with a draft business plan. The defendant contended that he was doing no more than making use of lawfully acquired skill, knowledge and experience.
David is experienced in contentious and non-contentious issues, acting for beneficiaries, trustees, executors, advisors and other interested parties in a variety of disputes and matters.
David is particularly interested in cross-over matters whether concerning the tax consequences of asset recovery proceedings, the responsibilities of pension scheme trustees in matrimonial disputes or otherwise. Amongst other present and recent matters, he has advised and acted in applications for clearance to HMRC, appeals to the HMRC against tax charges, the abilities of executors to vary trusts under a will, the enforcement of compromise agreements in probate proceedings, an appeal to the Upper Tribunal to rectify a TR1 following a sale of property, the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 consequences of inter-generational transfers by a party to divorce proceedings as part of the divorce settlement and (separately) of disabled trusts. He has extensive experience in Public Trustee v Cooper blessing applications and Beddoe applications for trustees and beneficiaries alike. He also has particular expertise in the deployment of trusts and other equitable concepts in the business concepts including the enforcement of court and other decisions.
Crescent Gas Corporation Ltd v (1) National Iraniaon Oil Company (2) Retirement, Saving and Welfare Fund of Oil Industry Workers [2025] EWCA Civ 1211,[2026] BCC 41, [2024] EWHC 835 (Comm) CL-2022-000383 (listed for hearing in Supreme Court, January 2027)
Claim to enforce $2bn arbitration award by CGC against NIOC (judgment debtor). The decisions to date and forthcoming appeal concern whether commercial property in SW1 (>£100 million) is owned by NIOC and is available for enforcement or whether they property was held on trust by NIOC for the benefit of Retirement, Saving and Welfare fund of Oil Industry Workers.
The appeal turns on the proper construction of s.53(1)(b) Law of Property Act 1925 and, in particular, i) whether an agent can manifest and prove a declaration of trust ii) the test for declaring trusts and iii) the consequences of non-compliance with the statute. This will be the most important and high profile examination of s.53(1)(b) since 1925.
Khurshid v Sam-Yorke [2025] UKUT 178 (LC)
Successful appeal to the Upper Tribunal to rectify a contract of sale of a new-build property and the Land Register. By reason of a conveyancing error, the contract inadvertently included the whole of a certain title of land rather than just part of it with the consequence that the contract also included separate land, 100m away and not marketed by the estate agents, which was earmarked for planning permission and development. David was brought in for the appeal and succeeding in overturning the judgment below.
Wade & Nicholson v Singh [2024] EWHC 1203(Ch)
A s423 application by liquidators against former directors for an order of sale of 4 properties. The claim concerned whether a 2017 Declaration of Trust by a father and daughter-in-law in favour of the latter evidenced an oral declaration of trust said to be made a decade before or constituted an effective written declaration or was a sham.
Chambers v Thomas Miller Wealth Management Ltd BL-2018-001811
A successful application by Mr Chambers to trace a £3.7m pension pot transferred on false premises as part of a pensions liberation scheme to cheat HMRC into certain assets held by the defendants.
Phillips v Chatfeild-Roberts PT-2017-000117
Contentious probate claim as to the whether the testator’s will should be proved having regard to capacity, undue influence and fraudulent calumny. David acted for the deceased’s live-in carer who was left £1m tax free by the last will, thus reducing the gifts to the testator’s nephew and niece. Settled the day before trial and would have been the longest such case in England and Wales.
Jones & Anor v Roundlistic [2019] 1 WLR 4416
Court of Appeal, leading decision on whether a term in a lease preventing sub-letting is unfair under the UTCCR 1999.
Some of David’s work is confidential in order to protect minors and others and includes:
David has been involved in some of the most high-profile pensions cases in recent years including appearing before the Grand Chamber of the ECJ in Safeway Ltd v Newton & Anor [2020] Pens.L.R. 4 as to whether a scheme can be retrospectively levelled down.
David acts for employers, trustees, members, professional advisors and public bodies.
Ross Trustee Services Limited (as Trustee of the Motor Industry Pension Plan) v Comron Rowe (as proposed Representative Defendant Pursuant to CPR Part 19.9) [2026[ EWHC 1901 (Ch)
The Motor Industry Pension Plan (established in 1977) originally had an NRA of 65 for men and 60 for women. Although the trustee attempted to equalise retirement ages via a new trust deed on 13 May 1992, significant legal ambiguity persisted over whether equalisation was successfully achieved then or at a much later date. The trustee initiated Part 8 High Court proceedings to secure a definitive ruling on the exact timelines. Complex construction / corrective construction arguments were raised. The Court approved a compromise of the claim negotiated between claimant and defendant. David acted for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Board of the Pension Protection Fund as interested parties whose interest stemmed from the fact that the PPF administered several sections of the Plan which were affected by the proposed compromise.
Places for People Pension Trustee Ltd v Places for People Group Ltd [2005] EWHC 3371 (Ch)
One of the most complex pensions claims ever with multiple questions concerning 10 definitive deeds and supplementary deeds whose validity is in question by reason of formality issues and/or s37 Pension Schemes Act. The court approved the incredibly detailed compromise of the claim, noting that “It is no exaggeration to say that, if all of the issues…were litigated, the trial would be of quite formidable complexity.” Rectification was also sought in relation to nearly 20 errors across five deeds.
TI Group Pension Scheme (judgment awaited)
A claim by the employers of a pension fund to rectify two transfer agreements pursuant to which assets from two schemes were transferred into a third scheme. The question was whether the ordinary commercial test for rectification (including outward expression of accord) was required on the basis that the documents to be rectified were transfer agreements or whether the slightly different pensions test applies on the basis that the documents in question constituted the exercise by trustees of a power in a situation where there was no commercial arms-length bargain and, accordingly, no outward expression of accord.
Judgment (still awaited) will be the first consideration by the court as to whether the contractual test of rectification or the pensions tests applied to transfer agreements entered into by employers and trustees of various schemes as part of a merger of assets and liabilities.
McGaughey v University Superannuation Scheme Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 873
Milestone judgment concerning a multi-derivative claim by members of a pension scheme against the directors of a trustee company for breach of the statutory and fiduciary duties concerning the valuation of the pension scheme and investment in fossil fuels. The case was listed as one of the Lawyer’s Top Ten Appeals of 2023 and has profound implications for pensions, trusts and company law practice and practitioners. The case raises the intersection of a company law derivative claim and a trusts derivative claim (where beneficiaries of a trust bring a claim when the trustees are disabled or unwilling to do so) and revives the concept of dog-leg claims while calling into question single purpose trust companies.
Safeway Ltd v Newton & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 869
The decision of the CA on the outstanding point as to whether s62 Pensions Act 1995 equalised the Safeway scheme.
Atos IT Services (UK) Ltd v Atos Pension Schemes Ltd [2020] EWHC 145 (Ch)
Whether a pension in payment can be indexed by reference to CPI having regard to the meaning of “the General Index of Retail Prices (all items)” and “where that index is not published”.
Safeway Ltd v Newton & Anor [2020] Pens.L.R. 4
Decision of the Grand Chamber of the ECJ holding that, as a matter of European law, a scheme cannot be retrospectively levelled down even if, as a matter of English law, the benefits are defeasible.
Blatchford Ltd v Blatchford & Ors [2019] EWHC 2743 (Ch)
The first decision to consider whether the subjective intention test identified by the Court of Appeal if FSHC is to be adopted in pensions rectification cases.
Re G4S Pension Scheme [2018] Pens.L.R. 16
Leading decision on whether a member of a defined benefit scheme closed to future accrual but with a final salary link is in “pensionable service” such that the scheme is “open” as opposed to “frozen” for the purpose of pensions legislation.
Beaton v Board of the Pension Protection Fund [2017] EWHC 2623 (Ch)
Nugee J, meaning of “attributable to his pensionable service” which has led the DWP to amend the legislation.
David has acted in many of the rectification cases since 2016 including:
Hogg Robinson v Harvey, Sovereign Trustees, Saga Group v Paul, Girls’ Day School Trust v GDST Pension Trustees, Vocalink Ltd v (1) Voca Pension Trustees Ltd & (2)Kris Kubiena, (1) ITV Network Ltd (2) ITV Services Ltd v (1) ITV Pension Scheme Ltd (2) Mr Geoffrey Draugn, Nomura International Plc v Nomura London Retirement Benefits Plan Trustees Ltd and another, Lloyds Bank Plc v Lloyds Banking Group Pensions Trustees Ltd Colart International Holdings v Colart Pension Trustees, Blatchford v Blatchford, SPS Technologies v Moitt, Viavi Solutions UK v Viavi Solutions Pension Trustee UK, Sirdar Plc Retirement Benefits Plan: Airea PLC and (1) Philip Andrew Copley & Ors, Cobham Ltd & Ors v Geoffrey White, TI Group Pension Scheme, Cabot G.B. Ltd v Taylor & Ors.
David also has an extensive experience in cross-over pensions / employment including (by way of example only)
NHS Business Services Authority v Williams [2016] EWHC 1952 (Ch) – whether a nursery nurse is to be considered a nurse within the meaning of the pension regulations.
British Telecommunications v Luck [2014] EWHC 290 (QB) – TUPE transfer of employment to joint venture, retained existing final salary pension benefit. subsequent withdrawal from joint venture. It is the Claimants’ case that BT represented to them that the terms of their employment (including pension) would be the same following their transfer to EPS and that their ability to participate in the BT pension scheme would not be prejudiced and would continue indefinitely.
Numerous advices on employment issues (e.g. what is pensionable pay) in statutory scheme
M Spehn v DB Group Services UK Limited 60186522024, 6007959/2024 and 2201510/2024
Claims by a well-known and successful trader in Deutsche Bank’s distressed debt group who brought 3 tribunal claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and whistleblowing. Mr Spehn made a $1bn profit on a trade concerning Zim Shipping whose share price boomed in covid. Subsequently he was dismissed following a sham redundancy process. He claimed whole of career losses including substantial bonuses and deferred remuneration. The matter was listed for a 4 week trial beginning Monday 2 March but settled shortly before for a confidential sum.
Cheshire v Blanchfield [2024] EWCA Civ 1317
An important case about what fiduciaries can do when preparing to compete with their principal in the future. The Court clarified that it is not automatically a breach of directors’ statutory or fiduciary duties (or employees’ duties of fidelity) to take preparatory steps towards competing with his or her principal, even whilst remaining a director.
Abrey Oct 2023
Partnership, company and employment dispute concerning a successful and well-known farming business
Dwyer v Fredbar & Bartlett Claim No. BL-2020-001411 CA May 2023
The leading case on the enforcement of post-termination restrictive covenants in the area of franchises. The claimant/appellant franchisor sought to restrain the defendant former franchisee from trading in the exclusive marketing territory contrary to restrictive covenants. The defendants (whom David represented) contended that the contract is voidable for misrepresentation, that the claimant was in fundamental breach of contract and that, even if the post-termination restrictions survive, they are unreasonably wide and, hence, unenforceable. The trial judge held the covenants to be unenforceable. Dwyer appealed to the Court of Appeal who unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that inequality of bargaining power is one of, if not the, most significant factors for determining the reasonableness of a restraint against trade.
Citadel Securities v Cologlu 2021
Claim for £100m in the London Court of International Arbitration and related claim in the Employment Tribunal. The claimant high frequency quantitative trading company claimed that the defendant misused confidential information when he provided a competitor with a draft business plan. The defendant contended that he was doing no more than making use of lawfully acquired skill, knowledge and experience.
David acts for a wide range of advisors, insurers and clients in professional negligence claims against lawyers, actuaries, accountants, investment managers, investment consultants, benefits consultants and the like. David has recently advised and appeared on behalf of conveyancing solicitors in mistaken sale of property, solicitors who advised a wealthy individual about his tax affairs and various trustees and executors and other claimants,. He often works simultaneously in the underlying Part 8 or equivalent claim as well as the Part 7 professional negligence action.
In a pensions context David is currently acting/has recently acted in several cases for (respectively) the trustees, solicitors and actuarial consultants concerning variously compliance with the power of amendment, formalities and the tax consequences of investment in residential property. Often the cases are highly complicated, brought against multiple defendants and raise a whole array of questions concerning consecutive duty, causation, limitation and exoneration clauses.
David has appeared in a successful mediation concerning one of the first cases to arise out of the LDI crisis in October 2022 following the Truss/Kwarteng mini budget and the urgent call on liquidity for all hedged schemes.
Professional negligence cases in the pensions context inevitably settle on confidential terms. Cases which are in the public domain include:
The professional negligence claim arising out of Places for People Pension Trustee Ltd v Places for People Group Ltd [2005] EWHC 3371 (Ch)
The professional negligence action arising out of CMG Pensions Trustees v CGI IT UK [2022] EWHC 2130 (Ch) concerning a subsequent advisor’s duty to advise on the prospect of a claim against former advisors.
Briggs & Ors v Clay & Ors [2019] EWHC 102 (Ch)
Preliminary application concerning the ability to refer to without prejudice communications whether it was alleged that advisors were negligent in the course of without prejudice negotiations. The matter was listed for what would have been the most high-profile and complex pensions professional negligence claims, raising several Supreme Court points.
Stanley Gibbons v Alexander Clay & Ors HC13D003111
In which David persuaded the court to order expert legal and actuarial evidence.
PPF v Aon Consulting Financial Services ltd & Ors HC-2014-002064
In which the court considered the appropriateness of expert evidence in a claim against actuarial consultant and lawyers.
PPF v Hill
Claim against former pension trustees / scheme advisors for breach of the investment regulations by investing solely in a commercial property portfolio.
Aon Pension Trustees Ltd v MCP [2012] Ch 1
The first appellate consideration of s27 of the Trustee Act 1925 (protection of trustees by means of advertisements).
David E Grant KC is regulated by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) and holds a current practising certificate. If you are not satisfied with the service provided, please click here.
To find out more, contact Matt Sale on +44 (0)20 7427 4910 for a confidential discussion.
