Dan’s trust and fiduciary litigation practice spans a wide range of jurisdictions in addition to England, encompassing both private and commercial disputes. Dan’s expertise in civil fraud makes him particularly well equipped to deal with cases involving allegations of dishonesty or bad faith against trustees, directors or other fiduciaries, whilst his strength in company law makes him highly sought after in matters involving complex corporate structures. Dan also has a specialist interest in beneficiary derivative claims and hybrid derivative claims.

A substantial proportion of Dan’s work concerns ultra high net worth private trust litigation and related advice. His current or recent involvement in such matters includes cases in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Gibraltar, the BVI, Guernsey and Jersey. The vast majority of Dan’s cases in this area are confidential, but his most significant cases in the public domain include the following in recent years:

Re Equity Trust (England, 2020-2024). Dan acted for the Defendants to claims in respect of allegedly fraudulent breaches of duty in relation to property transactions within a Jersey trust structure with a total value of £226 million. The claims were dismissed following a two-week trial in the Chancery Division: see [2023] EWHC 968 (Ch). Dan then appeared for the Defendants in the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the Claimants’ appeal: see [2024] EWCA Civ 571. The case raised the interesting question of whether and in what circumstances a corporate trustee may be vicariously liable for breaches of duty by an employee who is acting as director of a company within the trust structure.

Re Shah (England and Jersey, 2022-2024). Dan acted for the Defendants to derivative claim brought by the new trustee of a family trust in its capacity as shareholder of companies within the trust structure against directors of those companies (who included beneficiaries of the trust). A central issue in the case was the extent to which a trustee should be liable for acquiescing in alleged breaches of duty by directors of companies within the trust (where ex hypothesi breaches reduced the value of the companies and therefore of the trust). The claims were compromised on confidential terms.

Kazzaz v Standard Chartered (Guernsey, 2022-2024). Dan assisted the Defendant trust company in its successful defence of a claim for breach of trust and negligence in connection with two family trusts. That claim was dismissed following an 8-day jurat trial ([2023] GRC 0490); Dan then assisted in resisting the Plaintiffs’ subsequent appeal, which was dismissed in toto: see [2024] GCA 058. The case clarified the circumstances in which claims by a new trustee against a former trustee may be time-barred, with the Guernsey Court of Appeal also giving important guidance as to the nature of a trustee’s duty to act en bon père de famille, the admissibility of the judgment of a foreign court in Guernsey proceedings and the high threshold for appellate interference with findings of fact made by jurats.

St John’s Trust Company v Medlands (Bermuda, 2019-2022). Dan acted for the Protector of the multi billion dollar ‘B Trust’ in a multi-faceted dispute that included successfully resisting the former trustee’s attempt to challenge its removal in the Court of Appeal for Bermuda: see  [2021] CA (Bda) 20 Civ. That appeal concerned the novel question of how principles of natural justice apply in the context of trust administration proceedings (the trustee having contended that it had a right to be heard in respect of its removal).

Re Volpi (The Bahamas and England, 2019-2022). Dan acted for and advised the trustee of a number of ultra high value trusts, setting aside an ex parte disclosure order obtained against it in England and subsequently assisting in a challenge to an arbitral award in the Supreme Court of the Bahamas.

Dan has a market leading company law practice both in England and overseas, with a focus on shareholder disputes, derivative claims and claims based on breaches of directors’ duties, often in an insolvency context. In addition to a wide range of advisory and first instance work, Dan is regularly instructed on company law matters in the Court of Appeal and has recently appeared in both the Supreme Court and the Privy Council. Dan’s most notable cases include:

Zedra v THG plc (ongoing). Dan appeared on behalf of the respondents in this landmark case in which the Supreme Court held by a majority that no limitation period applies to unfair prejudice petitions: see [2026] UKSC 6; [2026] 2 WLR 479. In an earlier strand of the litigation Dan’s clients struck out the majority of the allegations against them in the Court of Appeal on the ground that there was no maintainable basis pleaded for the allegation that the respondent directors had acted in bad faith [2021] EWCA Civ 904; [2021] BCC 970.

Re The Port Fund (ongoing). Dan acts for the Plaintiffs, who were the limited partners and majority investors in a Cayman exempted limited partnership (ELP) that they allege to have been managed fraudulently. The case has raised novel and important points of principle in relation to ELPs, with Dan’s clients succeeding twice in the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal and on one occasion in the Privy Council: see [2024] UKPC 32; [2025] 1 BCLC 647. Dan appeared for the Plaintiffs in a three month trial in the Cayman Islands in 2026; judgment is awaited.

Re YSI (2024-2026). Dan acted for the majority shareholder of a ‘unicorn’ social gaming company, which brought a 9 figure derivative claim in Gibraltar against the co-founder minority shareholder, the company’s sole de jure director and related entities. Dan’s client was granted ‘stage two’ permission to pursue the claims following a heavily contested 5 day hearing. The proceedings were then compromised on confidential terms.

Loveridge v Loveridge (2020-2024). Dan appeared in two successive appeals in the Court of Appeal concerning the nature and scope of the unfair prejudice jurisdiction. In the first Dan’s clients successfully overturned an injunction that excluded them from managing companies of which they were the majority owners, vindicating the general principle that a majority of shareholders should be permitted to rule their company: see [2020] EWCA Civ 1104; [2022] BCLC 314. In the second appeal the court struck out the recast petition against Dan’s clients on the ground that the alleged conduct was not properly characterised as unfairly prejudicial: see [2021] EWCA Civ 1697; [2022] BCC 324.

Re BIG (2021). Dan acted for the successful appellant in the first case before the Court of Appeal to consider the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sevilleja v Marex on the rule in Prudential (also referred to as the rule against reflective loss). The court accepted the argument (which had been described at first instance as “ingenious but wrong”) that a cause of action conferred on a company by the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 could not engage the rule in Prudential to bar a claim under the relevant contract by a shareholder.

Dan is widely recognised as a leading civil fraud silk both domestically and overseas. He has acted and advised in relation to continuous stream of complex and high value fraud litigation, most recently a three-month trial in the Cayman Islands (The Port Fund, discussed below) that concluded in May 2026.

Dan is praised in the major directories for his skill as both a trial lawyer (with his cross examination being noted as a particular strength) and an appellate advocate. He also has substantial experience of obtaining and challenging freezing injunctions, proprietary injunctions and search orders. Dan’s fraud practice has also led to his developing highly sought after expertise in committal proceedings, the product of Dan’s involvement in many of the leading contempt cases of the last 15 years. Dan’s recent notable cases include the following:

Re The Port Fund (Cayman Islands, 2020-ongoing). Dan acts for the Plaintiffs, who were the limited partners and majority investors in a Cayman exempted limited partnership (ELP) that they allege to have been managed fraudulently. The case has raised novel and important points of principle in relation to ELPs, with Dan’s clients succeeding twice in the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal and on one occasion in the Privy Council: see [2024] UKPC 32; [2025] 1 BCLC 647. Judgment is awaited following the three month trial in which Dan appeared for the Plaintiffs.

Re YSI (Gibraltar, 2024-2026). Dan acted for the majority shareholder of a ‘unicorn’ social gaming company, which brought a 9 figure derivative claim in Gibraltar against the co-founder minority shareholder and entities associated with him, based on alleged fraudulent breaches of fiduciary duty and unlawful means conspiracies. Dan’s client was granted ‘stage two’ permission to pursue the claims following a heavily contested 5 day hearing. The proceedings were then compromised on confidential terms.

Isbilen v Turk (England, 2020-2026). Dan acted for the Claimant in a multi-jurisdiction £50m fraud claim. The case is an object lesson in the perils of failing to comply with ‘tracing relief’ disclosure obligations contained in a proprietary injunction. Unprecedentedly, Dan succeeded in obtaining a search and imaging order against D1 some 12 months after proceedings were served on him: see [2022] EWHC 572 (Ch). Dan then deployed the material uncovered by that means in a successful committal application heard over 10 days before defeating D1’s appeal against the resulting order: see [2024] EWCA Civ 568.

Re Equity Trust (England, 2020-2024). Dan acted for the Defendants to claims in respect of allegedly fraudulent breaches of duty in relation to property transactions within a Jersey trust structure with a total value of £226 million. The claims were dismissed following a two-week trial in the Chancery Division: see [2023] EWHC 968 (Ch). Dan then appeared for the Defendants in the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the Claimants’ appeal, holding that there was no basis to interfere with the trial judge’s finding that the Defendants had acted honestly: see [2024] EWCA Civ 571.

Re Black Capital (England, 2022-2024). Dan acted for an individual who was alleged to have been a partner in a business that was claimed to have been run as a Ponzi scheme, causing tens of millions of loss. Dan successfully opposed a winding up petition in respect of the alleged partnership, set aside the appointment of a provisional liquidator and (before the Court of Appeal) successfully appealed against a freezing order made against Mr Ubhi: see [2023] EWCA Civ 417; [2023] 4 All ER 530.

Russell v Cartwright (England, 2018-2020). Dan acted for the Defendants to a £35m unlawful means conspiracy claim by their former business partner, who alleged that they had dishonestly induced him to sell his stake in their property development business. Following a 10 day trial in the claims were dismissed in their entirety, with the judge concluding that the Claimant had given dishonest evidence under cross-examination by Dan: see [2020] EWHC 41 (Ch).