The Legal 500

CMS Cameron McKenna LLP

MITRE HOUSE, 160 ALDERSGATE STREET, LONDON, EC1A 4DD, ENGLAND
Tel:
Work 020 7367 3000
Fax:
Fax 020 7367 2000
DX:
135316 BARBICAN 2
Web:
www.cms-cmck.com
Email:

Mark Grant

Tel:
Work +44 20 7367 2325
Email:
CMS Cameron McKenna LLP

Work Department

Pensions.

Position

Partner specialising in pensions; advising employers and trustees on all aspects of pensions law; acted for Coloroll trustees in landmark ECJ case on sex equality issues; head of the firm’s Pensions Ombudsman Unit which advises on how to avoid complaints to the Ombudsman as well as defending employers, trustees and advisers; major clients include Royal Mail, Taylor Wimpey, ABN AMRO, Scottish & Newcastle, Weetabix, Bank of America and leading firms of independent trustees; extensive experience of winding up schemes.

Career

Trained McKenna & Co, qualified 1992; secondment to pensions practice of New York firm Winthrop Stimson Putnam & Roberts 1995; partner Cameron McKenna 1999; publications: ‘The Pensions Ombudsman: Powers, Procedures and Decisions’ (Sweet & Maxwell) 1998; winner of APL’s Wallace Medal for Excellence in Pensions Writing; assistant editor, Occupational Pensions Law Reports 1997-2007; co-editor of International Pension Lawyer 1995-97; numerous articles for trade journals; regular speaker at commercial conferences.

Member

Law Society working committee on the Pensions Bill, 1995; membership secretary, IPEBLA (International Pension and Employee Benefits Lawyers Association) 1997-2001; Association of Pension Lawyers; APL’s Pensions Litigation Committee; Pensions Ombudsman’s User Group.

Education

Haydon Bridge High School, Northumberland; Hertford College, Oxford (1989 BA Law).

Leisure

Cycling, Newcastle United.

Practice Areas

Pensions - dispute resolution; Pensions (non contentious)

Back to index

Legal Developments by:
CMS Cameron McKenna LLP

  • Access to justice: protective costs orders in planning challenges

    Third parties and competing developers have no rights of appeal to the Secretary of State against planning decisions. Disappointed applicants can appeal to the Secretary of State and can have the merits of the application reconsidered. The only remedy available to a disappointed third party is a challenge by way of judicial review in the High Court on a point of law. The sense of frustration and disempowerment this creates has not been helped by the increasing complexity of the planning process and the use of consultation to legitimise decisions that many perceive may already have been taken.
    - CMS Group

Legal Developments worldwide

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to