Saul specialises in pensions and employment, as well as professional negligence claims relating to pension schemes.
His pensions practice encompasses both pure pensions litigation and advisory work with his litigation experience including Part 8, professional negligence and rectification claims.
Additionally, Saul is in demand for his specialist knowledge of cross-over pensions and employment work having been instructed in the litigation relating to the judges pensions scheme, the police pension scheme, sexual orientation discrimination claims relating to the Teachers’ pension scheme and in the leading case relating to discrimination arising from the provision ill-health retirement benefits.
His employment work covers the full range of employment disputes including the private sector equal pay litigation and pensions and employment cross-over work. He has extensive experience of appellate advocacy in the EAT and has appeared numerous times in the Court of Appeal.
Saul is ranked in Band 1 for pensions by both Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners and is ranked in Band 1 for employment by Legal 500.
Saul was appointed to the Attorney General’s A Panel of Counsel in September 2021 and sits as a fee-paid Employment Judge.
Saul has been instructed in some of the highest profile pensions cases in recent years. His practice encompasses Part 8 claims, professional negligence claims, rectification claims as well as cross-over pensions and employment litigation.
Renishaw Plc v Ross Trustees Services Ltd [2025] EWHC 1445 (Ch)
Acted for the Trustee in a Part 8 claim for declaratory relief as to the correct interpretation of the Scheme’s rules.
Places for People
Jointly instructed by the trustee and the company in complex Part 8 and Part 7 proceedings relating to the execution of pension scheme deeds.
Project Swan
Jointly instructed by the trustee and the company in Part 8 proceedings relating to the validity of a deed closing the scheme to future accrual and connected Part 7 proceedings.
BBC v BBC Pension Trust Ltd [2024] ICR 1399, CA
Represented the successful representative beneficiary in the High Court and the Court of Appeal in proceedings determining the scope of the power of amendment and the ability of the BBC to close the pension scheme to future accrual.
Project Apple
Instructed on behalf of a major city law firm to defend negligence proceedings brought against it in relation to the execution of a deed closing a scheme to future accrual.
Andrew v Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust [2022] EWHC 2992 (Ch)
Represented the respondent NHS Trust in an appeal brought against a determination by the Pensions Ombudsman that a member had suffer no financial loss as a result of an incorrect pension estimate provided by his employer.
PSGS Trust Corp Ltd v Aon UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 2058 (Ch)
Represented the trustee in professional negligence proceedings against former advisers – successfully resisted an application for summary judgment.
Re: the Legal & General Group UK Pension and Assurance Fund and the Legal & General Group UK Senior Pension Scheme
Acted on behalf of the representative beneficiary in a highly complex case concerning the validity, construction and/or rectification of 13 sets of provisions governing two L&G pension schemes, dating back to the 1980s.
Gleeds v Aon
Prior to taking extended parental leave Saul represented one of the lawyer defendants in the professional negligence action arising out of the Part 8 litigation and the subsequent settlement.
Acting for the Trustee in a professional negligence claim relating to the provision of legal and actuarial services. The case raises numerous interesting limitation and contributory negligence issues, as well as the as yet untested question of whether and on what basis a Trustee can recover losses where scheme liabilities have been increased due to the negligence of a professional advisor.
Aarons and others v Home Secretary and others / Scottish Ministers and others
Acting for thousands (about 15,000 to date) of police officers in England, Wales and Scotland in a challenge to the transitional protection given to some officers (i.e. those closer to retirement age and who are older and proportionately more male and white) when the 2015 police pension scheme was introduced. The respondents are every police force (43 in England and Wales plus the Scottish force), the Home Secretary and the Scottish Ministers. The respondents have conceded liability.
IBM v Dalgleish
Part of the team that represented the Trustee in the remedy proceedings in the High Court.
Acting for the Trustee and employer in what has the potential to be a landmark Part 8 concerning an estoppel by convention and/or by deed, operating to prevent the members from asserting that the scheme did not close to future accrual from the intended date.
Wedgwood v Salt
Represented the successful trustee in Part 8 proceedings to determine the scope of the amendment power.
Williams v Trustees of Swansea University Pension Scheme and another [2019] 1 WLR 93
Instructed by the respondents in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in the first appellate case to consider the meaning of ‘unfavourable’ in a disability discrimination claim under s15, EqA and its application to the provision of ill health retirement benefits.
Unipart Group Ltd v UGC Pension Trustees Ltd [2018] EWHC 2124 (Ch)
Acted for the Trustee in a claim under Part 8 for rectification of the Scheme’s deed and rules.
HD v Secretary of State for Defence [2017] 4 WLR 182
Acted on behalf of the Secretary of State in an appeal concerning the award of a War widow’s pension.
Saul has extensive experience of all areas of employment law and appears regularly in the EAT, as well as in the Court of Appeal.
Smith v Nottingham City Transport [2024] EAT 94
Acted for the claimant in an appeal concerning the correct approach to a complaint’s perception when dealing with a harassment claim and the limits of the tribunal’s discretion in determining the amount of an award for injury to feelings.
Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Clark [2023] ICR 1169, CA
Represented the claimants in the leading case concerning the impact of failing to enter a correct EC number on a claim form and the jurisdiction of the tribunal to hear the claim. This case is part of a long-running equal pay claim brought by thousands of shop workers.
Petrica v Central London Community NHS Trust [2021] 5 WLUK 591
Acted for the claimant in an appeal concerning the correct approach the ET should take to determining the scope of the Claim Form and lists of issues.
Khorochilova v Euro Rep Ltd [2020] 2 WLUK 674
Acted for the claimant in a case concerning the correct approach to determining the issues of disability – in particular in cases concerning a mental impairment.
Davies v HL Insurance Limited [2020] IRLR 490
Acted for the successful claimant in a reinstatement appeal on the basis that a claimant requiring additional training in order to undertake an alternative role did not mean that re-engagement was not practicable.
Williams v Trustees of Swansea University Pension Scheme and another [2019] 1 WLR 93
Instructed by the respondents in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in the first appellate case to consider the meaning of ‘unfavourable’ in a disability discrimination claim under s15, EqA.
Bonnie v Department for Work and Pensions [2019] ICR 789)
Acted for one of the successful Claimants in an appeal concerning the question of when time starts to run for an appeal in circumstances where the judgment has been sent to someone who is not a party to the proceedings. The case a resulted in the ET guidance on time limits being re-written.
Aarons and others v Home Secretary and others / Scottish Ministers and others
Acting for thousands (about 15,000 to date) of police officers in England, Wales and Scotland in a challenge to the transitional protection given to some officers (i.e. those closer to retirement age and who are older and proportionately more male and white) when the 2015 police pension scheme was introduced. The respondents are every police force (43 in England and Wales plus the Scottish force), the Home Secretary and the Scottish Ministers. The respondents have conceded liability.
Davies v DL Insurance Services Ltd [2020] 1 WLUK 521
Acted for the claimant / appellant in one of the few re-instatement / re-engagement cases dealt with in recent years by the EAT. The EAT held that although the claimant might have needed some training and was not the best candidate for one particular job, this did not necessarily mean that compliance with a re-engagement order was not practicable.
Saul Margo 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.
