David E. Grant KC TEP is a chancery and commercial practitioner with specialist expertise in pensions, trusts, will and estates and professional negligence.
He has extensive advocacy experience up to the European Court of Justice and has also attended numerous mediations and round table meetings. David is happy as sole advocate or leading a counsel team and enjoys the process of working with his instructing solicitors, lay clients, insurers, funders, experts and other interested parties.
His clients have included many leading international businesses including British Airways, Lloyds Bank, the Atos Group and BT, leading professional advisers including Aon, Mercer, Barnett Waddingham and Momentum Global Investments, prominent charities and trusts, various statutory bodies as well as high net worth individuals and group claimants.
David has been recommended in a total of 4 areas in Chambers and Partners and the Legal 500 since 2007 and has been described as “absolutely amazing”, 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:
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.
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.
CGC v NIOC, Retirement Fund [2024] EWHC 835 (Comm) CL-2022-000383 (appeal listed July 2024)
Claim to enforce $2bn arbitration award. The forthcoming appeal concerns whether commercial property in SW1 (c.£200m) is owned by the National Oil Company of Iran and is available for enforcement or whether the property was held on trust by NIOC for the benefit of Retirement, Saving and Welfare fund of Oil Industry Workers.
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.
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 v Fredbar & Bartlett Claim No. BL-2020-001411
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. 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. He is currently advising on and acting in (amongst other matters) 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. He has extensive experience in Public Trustee v Cooper blessing applications and Beddoe applications for trustees and beneficiaries alike.
CGC v NIOC, Retirement Fund [2024] EWHC 835 (Comm) CL-2022-000383 (appeal listed July 2024)
In the context of a claim to enforce an arbitration award, the issues on appeal concern the declaration of trusts of land under s.53(1)(b) Law of Property Act 1925 and, in particular, whether agents and/or attorneys can evidence or declare trusts. The appeal is destined to become the leading authority on the issue.
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.
Khurshid v Sam-Yorke
Ongoing appeal to the Upper Tribunal to rectify a contract of sale of a new-build property and the Land Register which 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
Places for People Pension Trustee Ltd v Places for People Group Ltd (imminent)
One of the most complex Part 8 claims concerning 10 definitive deeds and supplementary deeds who validity is in question by reason of formality issues and/or s37 Pension Schemes Act. Rectification is also sought in relation to five deeds.
TI Group Pension Scheme (judgment awaited)
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 acts for a wide range of advisors and clients in professional negligence claims against lawyers, actuaries, accountants, investment managers, investment consultants, benefits consultants and the like. David is currently acting for conveyancing solicitors in mistaken sale of property, solicitors who advised a wealthy individual about his tax affairs, 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 just 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 invariably settle on confidential terms. Cases which are in the public domain include:
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 or Andy Hunter on +44 (0)20 7427 4905 for a confidential discussion.
Our dedicated practice management team can help you identify the right barrister for your case.
