David Gallagher
David Gallagher is head of the pensions practice at Fieldfisher and advises a wide range of clients - employers large and small, trustees, pension product providers and individuals - on day-to-day pensions matters, scheme restructurings, winding up schemes, investment and litigation issues.
Originally qualified as a barrister, David worked in the public sector from 1993 to the end of 1999. He has specialised in pensions law since 1996. David has played a leading role in developing the firm's public sector pensions practice which is now widely recognised as a market leader. He has worked on a number of high profile and sensitive projects for government bodies and he has been at the forefront of developing drafting solutions for the greater protection of public funds on future re-tenders mandated by revised government guidance.
David handles all areas of work, from drafting trust deeds and rules for new occupational pension schemes and consolidating scheme governing documents to member disputes, funding negotiations and advising on the winding-up process. He frequently manages the pensions aspect of corporate transactions from other departments of the firm and has advised on the pensions aspects of a number of major public private partnership transactions and private sector mergers, acquisitions, disposals and insolvency, including the use of regulatory clearance procedures.
David has been involved in a number of pensions disputes in the courts for employers, trustees and representative beneficiaries including the Smithson v Hamilton case which progressed to the Court of Appeal, as well as a number of pre-litigation matters where the disputes have been resolved.
Practice Areas
Panel
- Contributing Author
9 Contributions by David Gallagher
PRACTICE NOTES
Appeals against Pensions Ombudsman determinations: High Court (Chancery Division) and Court of Session procedures, grounds of law, orders, costs and judicial review
Refer to our Practice Note: Pensions Ombudsman determination tracker for the key determinations by the Pensions Ombudsman we’ve covered...
Family
PRACTICE NOTES
Estoppel in Occupational Pension Schemes: Leading Cases on Convention and Representation, Member Reliance and Detriment, Group Versus Single Members, Trustees’ Discretion, and When Booklets Cannot Override the Rules
The doctrine of estoppel
Lord Denning MR once hailed the doctrine of estoppel as among the law’s most adaptable and valuable tools. Estoppel is an umbrella concept describing circumstances in which a court prevents a party from putting forward assertions that conflict with a stance that party has earlier adopted. In effect, it stops a litigant advancing a case inconsistent with the position it has previously asserted. Ordinarily it operates only where there has been reliance on a representation previously made by the other party to the dispute. Its availability is therefore linked to the reliance shown on that earlier statement. There remains active academic discussion about whether estoppel is properly a rule of evidence or a rule of law, and about whether it can ground a positive claim or is confined to use as a defence. Although estoppel historically played a significant role in occupational pension schemes, more recently estoppel-based submissions have tended to fare poorly in High Court proceedings. Practitioners should be aware that the Pensions Ombudsman does sometimes apply estoppel for the benefit of a scheme member, for example as a defence to recovery of an overpayment. For more detail, see Practice Note: Estoppel and pensions...
Pensions
PRACTICE NOTES
Key Pensions Ombudsman decisions and case law to 2017: jurisdiction, remedies, distress awards, ill-health retirement, surplus and procedure (archived)
ARCHIVED
This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. It examines notable decisions of the Pensions Ombudsman and the courts up to 2017 concerning the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, remedial powers and various procedural issues, together with the standards applied to ill-health retirement determinations. For additional detail on key themes from recent Pensions Ombudsman determinations—covering interpretation of scheme rules, the duties of trustees/providers, trustee/provider communications with members, employer duties, pension liberation, and the Ombudsman’s role/jurisdiction—see Practice Note: The Pensions Ombudsman—key themes from the determinations. The Pensions Ombudsman’s determinations do not amount to binding precedents, whether for the same Pensions Ombudsman or for his or her successors in office. Nonetheless, they are valuable as guidance. Traditionally, cases are cited by the complainant’s name along with the reference number assigned by the Ombudsman’s office (a letter signifies the year the complaint was received, followed by a unique number allocated to that case)...
Family
PRACTICE NOTES
Pension trustees’ mistaken decisions: Hastings-Bass after Pitt v Holt, equitable relief for mistake versus rectification, and pensions-specific limits from Kerr, Mettoy, Sieff v Fox and Smithson v Hamilton
This Practice Note reviews how case law has progressively defined the scope of circumstances in which trustees of a trust, including those operating an occupational pension scheme, may have documents they previously executed set aside where some form of mistake undermined their execution of the instrument. While the discussion concentrates on the principles in a pension scheme context, a number of the authorities arise from the practice of employing trust structures to avoid or save tax. In place of setting aside a document on the basis of mistake, it may in some cases be possible to correct the error retrospectively through the equitable remedy of rectification. For further information on rectification, see Practice Notes: Amending mistakes and rectification in pensions and Rectification—the key cases for pension lawyers.
Hastings-Bass The facts
The case of Hastings-Bass v Inland Revenue Commissioners arose when the trustees of a trust settlement used a power of advancement under that trust to pass some funds from that trust to another trust (the Transfer). Their objective was to lessen the estate duty payable under the first trust...
Pensions
PRACTICE NOTES
Pensions Ombudsman complaints: jurisdiction, eligibility, IDRP, Resolution Team and adjudication (lead/expedited), determinations, enforcement and appeals
Following the handover of The Pensions Advisory Service (TPAS)’s dispute resolution function to the Pensions Ombudsman on 19 March 2018, the Pensions Ombudsman now provides two avenues for resolving disputes:
an informal route run by the Pensions Ombudsman’s Resolution Team (for more detail, see Resolution Team, below), and
its normal adjudication service
Unless indicated otherwise, this Practice Note concentrates on the Pensions Ombudsman’s adjudication service. In particular, it considers the steps taken before, during and after a complaint is brought to the Pensions Ombudsman under that adjudication route, together with the conduct of an investigation by the Pensions Ombudsman. We have reported on key Pensions Ombudsman determinations arising from the adjudication service. For additional details, see: Pensions Ombudsman determination tracker.
Legal framework for making complaints to the Pensions Ombudsman
As a statutory creation, the office of the Pensions Ombudsman is established and regulated by sections 145 to 152 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (PSA 1993) (as amended)...
Family
PRACTICE NOTES
Rectification of pension scheme documents: key cases, evidential standards and the subjective intention test after FSHC and Univar; construction/rectification, unilateral powers, execution defects and bona fide purchaser defences
This Practice Note reviews the principal authorities on correcting pension scheme documentation. An evolving body of case law has set out broadly settled principles, yet judicial approaches may differ in the extent of pragmatic remedies the courts deploy. Decisions outside the pensions sphere can likewise inform rectification questions. Comparable rulings outside the pension context may likewise be pertinent when assessing whether rectification is appropriate.
Lansing Linde v Alber
This decision was notable in confining rectification to situations where the instrument did not capture the parties’ shared intention. Lansing Linde sponsored two defined benefit schemes. Following Barber, each scheme equalised benefits for male and female members. On their face, the equalisation changes in both schemes granted men and women an unconditional right to retire from age 60. The employer contended it had meant to increase women’s pension age to 65 and to allow an unreduced pension at 60 solely at the express discretion of both employer and trustees. It said the drafted amendments, viewed objectively, did not reflect that intention and went further than was intended. Consent was essential always...
Pensions
PRACTICE NOTES
The Pensions Ombudsman: Jurisdiction, Powers, Remedies, Limits, Enforcement and Procedure (including overpayment recovery, FOS overlap and time limits)
FORTHCOMING CHANGE :
The Pension Schemes Bill, anticipated to obtain Royal Assent in 2026, among other measures, would confer on the Pensions Ombudsman powers mirroring those of a competent court where pension overpayments must be recouped. As a result, trustees would no longer need to seek County Court orders in these matters, thereby cutting legal spend, easing administrative effort and promoting a swifter, more streamlined recovery for schemes and members, and ensuring a more efficient process overall. For more detail, see LNB News 05/06/2025 42 and Pension Schemes Bill—tracker — Pensions Ombudsman and overpayments.
This Practice Note reviews the scope of the Pensions Ombudsman to handle occupational and personal pension complaints and disputes under its adjudication function, covering:
who may bring or refer complaints/disputes
which complaints/disputes fall within or outside its remit
the powers he can exercise when determining matters
relevant time limits
Collectively, these areas define the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under its adjudication service for both occupational and personal pensions. Note that, following the transfer of The Pensions Advisory Service (TPAS)’s dispute resolution function to the Pensions Ombudsman on 19 March 2018, the Ombudsman also provides an informal resolution route led by its Resolution team, alongside its standard adjudication service...
Family
PRACTICE NOTES
The Pensions Regulator and UK public service pension schemes: governance, General Code compliance, contributions monitoring, member communications, dispute resolution and breach reporting duties for scheme managers and pension boards
The Pensions Regulator
The Pensions Regulator (TPR) is the statutory authority overseeing occupational pension schemes, with a view to, among other aims, safeguarding members’ benefits, minimising calls on the Pension Protection Fund, and promoting and improving understanding of the good administration of work‑based pension schemes. Its remit also extends to UK public service schemes.
TPR supplies guidance, education and training, and practical assistance to support scheme managers, pension boards, administrators, employers and others in meeting legal obligations while striving for best practice. It collaborates with scheme advisory boards so its message and guidance reach the widest possible audience.
Where it considers it necessary, TPR has said it is willing to deploy its powers in relation to public service pension schemes. Detailing particular cases falls outside the scope of this Practice Note. Nonetheless, TPR has confirmed it has exercised its powers in the public service pension arena.
This Practice Note reviews the Pensions Regulator’s requirements and recommendations for public sector pension schemes, which, until 2014, had for the most part sat outside the Regulator’s remit. In particular, it examines the public sector schemes under the Regulator’s...
Pensions
PRECEDENTS
Local Government Pension Scheme (England and Wales) Tripartite Admission Agreement for Outsourced Services
This Agreement is dated [ insert date— note that admission agreements may now commence prior to the execution date and, where appropriate, take effect from an earlier date ].
Parties
[ insert full name of Administering Authority ] (the ‘Administering Authority’);
[ insert full name of Scheme Employer ] (the ‘Scheme Employer’);
[ insert full name of Admission Body ], a company incorporated in England (company registration no. [ insert number ]) with its registered office at [ insert registered company address ] (the ‘Admission Body’).
Background
[ insert full name of Administering Authority ] acts as the Administering Authority of the [ insert full name of pension scheme ] in accordance with the Regulations as in force.
The Scheme Employer is a scheme employer within the meaning given by the Regulations.
From the Contract Start Date, the Admission Body shall deliver the Services in relation to the performance of a function of the Scheme Employer pursuant to, and in accordance with, the Contract between the Scheme Employer and the Admission Body...
Pensions
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
