Nicolas Stallworthy KC’s practice involves the interaction of trust law, contract law, insolvency and professional negligence at very high levels of complexity and value.
He undertakes cases concerning the interpretation of trusts, contracts, financial instruments & legislation; and the application of trust principles in the broader commercial context. His professional negligence practice focuses on solicitors, insurance companies, benefits consultants, professional trustees, actuaries & investment advisers.
He also has extensive experience of regulatory cases under the pensions regulatory regime. His work is conducted in the Business & Property Courts, the Tax & Chancery Chamber of the Upper Tribunal and appellate courts.
Nick’s expertise is acknowledged by the legal directories. Chambers & Partners UK (2024) ranks him for Chancery Commercial, Pensions and Professional Negligence; and Legal 500 (2025) ranks him for Pensions and Professional Negligence.
Nick is called to the Bar of Northern Ireland (2010) and registered at the DIFC (2013).
He is also a Head of Chambers (Deputy Head of the Business Team).
Nick is one of the most highly regarded practitioners at the pensions bar, with specialist knowledge of almost all issues affecting pensions schemes. He has appeared as an advocate before courts at all levels (including the Supreme Court).
His cases have concerned the interpretation of trust deeds & rules and legislation (including e.g. indexation issues); the scope and exercise of powers (in particular, amendment powers and the formal validity of amending instruments); use of surplus; rectification; rescission of instruments on grounds of equitable mistake, inadequate deliberation or improper purpose; the application of equitable maxims and doctrines (e.g. estoppel) in the pensions context; the employer debt and scheme funding legislation; the powers of the Pensions Regulator (in particular its financial support direction and contribution notice powers); pensions and insolvency; European law’s impact on pension schemes (in particular in connection with ‘equalisation’); trustees’ applications for court approval or the conferral of additional powers (under s.57 of the Trustee Act 1925); and pensions-related professional negligence claims (concerning solicitors, insurance companies, benefits consultants, professional trustees, actuaries & investment advisers).
Nick has been top-ranked as a pensions expert by Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500 for many years. He has been elected to the Main Committee of the Association of Pension Lawyers (serving two consecutive terms of office).
Verity Trustees Ltd v Wood and Save the Children – judgment pending
Massive proceedings concerning an industry-wide scheme, raising myriad issues including the amendment of amendment powers, determining partial validity after attempted excessive execution of powers, the interpretation and operation of s.37 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and reg.42 of the Contracting-out Regulations 1996.
Arcadia Group Pension Trust Ltd v Smith [2025] EWHC 11 (Ch)
Court approval of a trustee’s decision to amend a scheme in surplus, during its winding up, and merge another scheme in deficit into it.
Virgin Media Ltd v NTL Pension Trustees II Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 843, [2024] Pens. L.R. 14
The leading authority on the interpretation of s.37 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and reg.42 of the Contracting-out Regulations 1996.
Pennon Pension Trustees Ltd v Pennon Group Plc [2024]
Rare use of s.57 of the Trustee Act 1925 to implement amendments otherwise precluded by an express fetter on the scheme’s amendment power.
Brass Trustees Ltd v Goldstone [2023] EWHC 1978 (Ch), [2024] Pens. L.R. 1
A leading authority on the relevance of the Pension Protection Fund to trustee decision-making.
Atos IT Services Ltd v Atos Pension Schemes Ltd, Re: the Atos UK 2011 Pension Scheme [2020] EWHC 145 (Ch), [2020] Pens. L.R. 17
An important authority on the interpretation of pension scheme indexation provisions.
Carr v Thales Pension Trustees Ltd & Thales UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 949 (Ch); [2020] Pens. L.R. 19
An appeal from the Pensions Ombudsman about the interpretation of a pension scheme rule which contained a latent inconsistency.
Arup UK Ltd v Trustees of the Arup UK Pension Scheme [2020] EWHC 1064 (Ch), [2020] Pens. L.R. 21
Concerned the interpretation of the scheme’s indexation rule which would require or (as a matter of discretion) permit a switch away from the Retail Prices Index for future increases to pensions in payment.
Re: the Barnardo’s Pension Scheme [2018] UKSC 55, [2019] 2 All E.R. 175
The leading authority on the interpretation of pension scheme trust instruments.
The Pensions Regulator v ITV & Granada, Re: the Box Clever Pension Scheme [2019] EWCA Civ 1032, [2020] ICR 747; and [2015] EWCA Civ 228, [2015] 4 All E.R. 919
The first ever substantive trial before the Upper Tribunal of a reference from the Determinations Panel; and the upholding of that decision by the Court of Appeal.
Shannan v Viavi, Re: the Wandel & Goltermann Pension Scheme [2018] EWCA Civ 681, [2018] Pens. L.R. 11
An appeal concerning the exercise of powers to substitute principal employers (including issues about the Duomatic principle and the presumption of regularity).
M v St. Anne’s Trustees Ltd
Advising on first appellate Hastings-Bass decision since Pitt v Holt (Guernsey Court of Appeal).
IBM v Dalgleish [2017] EWCA Civ 1212, [2018] ICR 1681
The IBM ‘Project Waltz’ proceedings about the interpretation of fetters to amendment powers, the exercise of exclusion powers (including whether they were exercised for a collateral or improper purpose) and the employer’s ‘duty of good faith’ in the exercise of powers.
The Lehman Litigation
Re: Nortel & Re: Lehman Brothers Pension Scheme [2013] UKSC 52, [2014] A.C. 209; The Pensions Regulator v Lehman Brothers [2013] EWCA Civ 751, [2013] 4 All E.R. 744; and Re Storm Funding Ltd [2013] EWHC 4019, [2014] Bus. L.R. 454.
IBM UK Pensions Trust Ltd v IBM & Metcalfe [2012] EWHC 2766 (Ch), [2012] Pens. L.R. 469
The IBM rectification proceedings, achieving ‘serial rectification’ of a drafting error appearing across successive instruments.
Industry-Wide Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Co-ordinator v Industry-Wide Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Trustees [2012] EWHC 3712, [2013] Pens. L.R 55
A key case on the corrective interpretation of legislation.
Bridge Trustees Ltd v Yates [2011] UKSC 42, [2011] 1 WLR 1912
The landmark case determining the meaning of ‘money purchase benefits’ within the pensions litigation.
Nick has substantial expertise in professional negligence cases concerning solicitors, insurance companies, benefits consultants, professional trustees, actuaries and investment advisers, particularly in connection with pension schemes or trusts.
Much of the time Nick manages to keep his clients, particularly his defendant clients, out of court: e.g. operating successfully behind the scenes to help the parties find trust law solutions to resolve drafting errors or unintended tax liabilities or other problems.
Nick’s expertise in professional negligence work has long been acknowledged by all the main legal directories, including Chambers & Partners and Legal 500.
Honda Group-UK Pension Scheme Trustee Ltd & Others v Mercer Ltd, Re: the Honda Pension Scheme [2022] EWHC 3197 (Ch), [2023] P.N.L.R. 8
A complex claim against a benefits consultancy in relation to advice during the production of a consolidating trust deed & rules.
Briggs v Alexander Clay, Aon Consulting Financial Services and Others [2019] EWHC 102 (Ch)
A massive multi-party action, in which a benefits consultancy, sued for the invalidity of amending deeds, alleged that the loss was caused or contributed to by negligence on the part of lawyers involved in the prior Court proceedings in which the deeds had been held invalid.
Capital Cranfield Trustees Ltd v Pinsent Curtis [2005] EWCA Civ 860, [2005] 4 All E.R. 449
A high-profile claim against solicitors concerning their advice about a pension scheme’s contribution rule, alleged to have caused trustees to miss out on claiming further funding from the sponsoring employer.
Harland & Wolff Pension Trustees Ltd v Aon Consulting Financial Services Ltd [2009] EWHC 1557, [2010] ICR 121
Long-running and widely-reported proceedings arising out of ineffective steps to equalise a pension scheme. Amongst other reported judgments in the proceedings, the case produced a significant decision about whether a claimant’s application to amend their statement of case was introducing a ‘new claim’ for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980, after expiry of the limitation period.
Nick’s Commercial Litigation practice includes: rectification of commercial instruments (e.g. IBM); debentures and other securities (e.g. the Box Clever litigation and, with others, drafting the DIFC’s Law of Securities 2024); contested valuation issues (e.g. the Box Clever litigation) and challenges to expert determinations; sale and purchase agreements (e.g. warranties and expert determination clauses); commercial trust instruments and legislation (e.g. the Lehman litigation); challenges to the exercise of contractual discretions and/or powers under commercial trusts (e.g. IBM); regulatory investigations in financial services cases (e.g. Silentnight); the Duomatic principle; the application of equitable principles and maxims in commercial contexts (e.g. estoppel); the court’s conferral on trustees of additional powers to manage commercial trusts (e.g. under s.57 of the Trustee Act 1925); restitution; insolvency (e.g. the principle against ‘double dipping’: see Re: Storm Funding); privilege and disclosure; and professional negligence claims.
Nick is ranked for Commercial Chancery work by Chambers & Partners Global Guide and Chambers & Partners UK; and for Professional Negligence cases by Chambers & Partners UK and the Legal 500. Described as “a stellar advocate”, he has appeared as an advocate before courts at all levels (including the Supreme Court).
The Pensions Regulator v The HIG Group, Re: the Silentnight Group DB Scheme [2021]
A high-profile case arising out of a private equity group’s purchase of the Silentnight Group pursuant to a ‘loan to own’ purchase of group debt. The case raised novel issues about the boundaries for acceptable conduct by lenders (declining to renew or extend lending) and independent third party purchasers seeking to acquire & restructure businesses in competition with other buyers.
Briggs v Alexander Clay, Aon Consulting Financial Services and Others [2019] EWHC 102 (Ch)
A key case on the boundaries of the exceptions to ‘without prejudice privilege’ in the context of multi-party litigation.
Re: the Barnardo’s Pension Scheme [2018] UKSC 55, [2019] 2 All E.R. 175
The leading authority on the interpretation of commercial trust instruments.
Granada Rental & Retail Ltd & Others v The Pensions Regulator, Re: the Box Clever Pension Scheme [2019] EWCA Civ 1032, [2019] B.P.I.R. 1121
A leading authority on ‘connection and association’ under the insolvency legislation and on the interpretation of voting control provisions under debentures.
Shannan v Viavi, Re: the Wandel & Goltermann Pension Scheme [2018] EWCA Civ 681, [2018] Pens. L.R. 11
An appeal concerning the boundaries of the Duomatic principle and the presumption of regularity (amongst other matters).
IBM v Dalgleish [2017] EWCA Civ 1212, [2018] ICR 1681
The ‘Project Waltz’ proceedings, concerning an employer’s ‘duty of good faith’ in the exercise of the benefit trusts.
The Lehman litigation
Re: Nortel & Re: Lehman Brothers Pension Scheme [2013] UKSC 52, [2014] A.C. 209; The Pensions Regulator v Lehman Brothers [2013] EWCA Civ 751, [2013] 4 All E.R. 744 ; and Re Storm Funding Ltd [2013] EWHC 4019, [2014] Bus. L.R. 454.
IBM UK Pensions Trust Ltd v IBM & Metcalfe [2012] EWHC 2766 (Ch), [2012] Pens. L.R. 469
The IBM rectification proceedings, achieving ‘serial rectification’ of a drafting error appearing across successive instruments.
Industry-Wide Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Co-ordinator v Industry-Wide Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Trustees [2012] EWHC 3712, [2013] Pens. L.R 55
A key case on the corrective interpretation of legislation.
Throughout his practice, Nick has a undertaken a substantial amount of work involving insolvency and restructuring, particularly in interaction with occupational pension schemes.
The DIFC’s Law of Security 2024
With others, drafting the DIFC’s Law of Securities 2024. This was a major drafting project for cutting-edge new legislation for the DIFC.
Brass Trustees Ltd v Goldstone [2023] EWHC 1978 (Ch), [2024] Pens. L.R. 1
Court approval of a trustee’s decision to petition for the winding up of a trust’s sponsoring employer. A leading authority on the relevance of the Pension Protection Fund to trustee decision-making.
The Pensions Regulator v The HIG Group, Re: the Silentnight Group DB Scheme [2021]
A high-profile recent case arising out of a private equity group’s purchase of the Silentnight Group pursuant to a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement. The Regulator asserted ‘connection and association’ under the insolvency legislation through ‘shadow’ and/or de facto directorship and/or ‘control’ under share sale and revolving credit facility arrangements.
A leading authority on ‘connection and association’ under the insolvency legislation and on the interpretation of voting control provisions under debentures.
A leading authority on ‘double dipping’, i.e. the general principle that a creditor cannot recover more than 100% of what is in substance the same debt from two estates. This was an administrators’ application for directions in relation to the Lehman Brothers group. The application resolved the interpretation of the Pensions Regulators’ financial support direction legislation to clarify whether multiple ‘contribution notices’ each claiming Lehman Brothers Ltd’s full statutory debt under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 could be claimed against multiple Lehman group companies in administration.
Garvin Trustees Ltd v The Pensions Regulator [2015] Pens. L.R. 1
Concerning the extent to which a company’s legal professional privilege survives its dissolution.
The leading authority on the classification of liabilities, under the insolvency legislation, as ‘provable debts’ (ranking pari passu with other creditors) or ‘expenses of the administration’.
While the appeal decision remains a landmark case on the interpretation of pension scheme contribution rules, the conjoined proceedings at first instance had included Companies Court proceedings challenging the liquidators’ rejection of a proof of debt and ability to go behind prescribed calculation methodologies for relevant debts (with associated disclosure arguments).
The landmark case concerning the extent to which statutory debts under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 can be compromised by trustees in the face of impending corporate insolvency, without impermissibly seeking to ‘contract out’ of that legislation. The application was expedited and considered (amongst other matters) whether the trustees’ compromise and payment was at any risk of constituting an unlawful preference.
Nick is a leading trusts practitioner, with wide experience in delivering trust law solutions. His cases have included the interpretation of trust instruments (including trustees’ applications under section 48 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985); rectification of trust instruments; applications to set aside transactions on grounds of equitable mistake, inadequate deliberation, improper purpose and/or conflicts of interest/duties; trustees’ applications for the conferral of additional powers under section 57 of the Trustee Act 1925; the imputed exercise of powers; proceedings to challenge or confirm the formal validity of the exercise of powers; and trustees’ applications for court approval of momentous decisions (e.g. the merger of trusts or compromises).
Verity Trustees Ltd v Wood and Save the Children – judgment pending
Acting for the charity, Save the Children, in massive proceedings raising myriad trust issues, including the amendment of amendment powers, determining partial validity after attempted excessive execution of powers, imputed exercise of powers and whether the trustee should be granted a Benjamin order (permitting the trustee to administer the trusts on a particular basis).
Arcadia Group Pension Trust Ltd v Smith [2025] EWHC 11 (Ch)
Acting for the trustee on its application for court approval of the trustee’s decision to amend a trust in surplus, during its winding up, and merge another trust in deficit into it. A novel case about the proper purposes of powers affecting the introduction of new beneficiaries during winding up.
Pennon Pension Trustees Ltd v Pennon Group Plc & Others [2024]
Acting for the trustee on a successful application to the court for the conferral under section 57 of the Trustee Act 1925 of power to restructure the trusteeship. Such a restructuring was otherwise precluded by express fetters on the trustee’s amendment power.
Brass Trustees Ltd v Goldstone [2023] EWHC 1978 (Ch), [2024] Pens. L.R. 1
Acting for the representative beneficiary on a trustee’s application for approval of its decision to petition for the winding up of the trust’s sponsoring employer.
Re: the Barnardo’s Pension Scheme [2018] UKSC 55, [2019] 2 All E.R. 175
Acting for the trustee in the leading authority on the interpretation of trust instruments.
M v St Anne’s Trustees Ltd [2018] GLR 1, 23 ITELR 857
Advising the settlor and beneficiary on his successful application against the trustee for rescission of a transaction on grounds of inadequate deliberation, so that an unintended tax liability was not triggered. Shares of Bermudan and BVI companies holding UK property had been transferred into a Guernsey trust, risking a multi-million pound UK tax liability. Rescission of the transaction was granted by the Guernsey Court of Appeal. This was the first appellate consideration of the applicable trust law principles since Pitt v Holt.
IBM UK Pensions Trust Ltd v IBM & Metcalfe [2012] EWHC 2766 (Ch), [2012] Pens. L.R. 469
Acting for a representative beneficiary in landmark rectification proceedings, establishing ‘serial rectification’ of a drafting error appearing across successive instruments.
Kennedy v Kennedy [2014] EWHC 4129 (Ch), [2015] B.T.C. 2, [2015] W.T.L.R. 837
Advising a professional trustee, behind the scenes, in connection with an application to set aside part of a transaction on grounds of equitable mistake, so as to obviate a substantial tax liability. This was an important decision confirming the availability of partial rescission of deeds for mistake.
Nicolas Stallworthy 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.
