Michael advises and appears in technically demanding commercial disputes, including contractual claims, shareholder and partnership disputes, and claims involving complex issues of valuation, causation and loss. He is frequently instructed where commercial strategy and procedural control are as important as the legal merits, including in high-value cross-border litigation and urgent applications to preserve and recover disputed assets.

Selected cases

• Abramenko and Misevich v Chuprin: Acting in DIFC proceedings in which the Court granted a mid‑trial proprietary injunction preserving disputed trust bank accounts in a dispute exceeding USD 1 billion arising from an international online gaming business. The matter forms part of a wider suite of proceedings and arbitrations across multiple jurisdictions, and concerns the validity and operation of a DIFC law trust (which holds companies worldwide) and the alleged dissipation of trust assets totalling hundreds of millions of dollars.
• SKAT v Elysium & another: Acting in DIFC proceedings brought by the Danish tax authority seeking to recover sums said to be traceable to an alleged tax fraud. The dispute raises complex issues of jurisdiction, limitation and unjust enrichment, and involves alleged transfers through a chain of non‑DIFC entities to assets located in the United States. The case is a contested, high‑value piece of international commercial litigation with parallel proceedings in multiple jurisdictions.
• Franove Holdings Limited v Rampart Capital LLP: Acting in claims alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misstatement and breach of collateral contract arising from promoted real estate investments. The matter is listed for trial in 2027.
• Share sale dispute: Acting in a damages claim arising from a dispute concerning a share purchase agreement with a value of approximately £35 million.
• Claim against the Secretary of State: Acting in a £40 million claim against the Secretary of State involving allegations of negligent misstatement and other complex public and commercial law issues.
• Offshore corporate control dispute: Advising on a complex contractual dispute concerning control of a group of offshore companies holding assets across multiple jurisdictions.

Michael has an extensive civil fraud practice. He acts in disputes involving allegations of dishonesty, forged or disputed documents, and fraud in commercial and property transactions. He is regularly instructed in urgent interim relief, including freezing and proprietary injunctions and disclosure orders, to secure assets and evidence at speed.

Selected cases

• Abramenko and Misevich v Chuprin: Acting in DIFC proceedings in which the Court granted a mid‑trial proprietary injunction restraining dealings with disputed trust bank accounts said to be worth approximately USD 28 million.
• SKAT v Elysium and another: Acting for a defendant in DIFC proceedings forming part of a multi-jurisdictional asset‑recovery action connected with alleged tax fraud. The dispute raises complex issues of jurisdiction, limitation and unjust enrichment, and concerns attempts to trace assets through multiple entities and jurisdictions, including to property in the United States, within a contested and high‑value piece of international commercial litigation with parallel proceedings elsewhere

• Tich Limited v National Westminster Bank Plc: Acting in a claim arising from authorised push‑payment fraud, alleging failures in the bank’s fraud‑prevention procedures and raising important issues of limitation and pleading.
• Franove Holdings Limited v Rampart Capital LLP: Acting in claims alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misstatement and breach of collateral contract arising from promoted real estate investments. The matter is listed for trial in 2027.
• SG Kleinwort Hambros Bank v Sutton: Acting for the claimant bank in obtaining a proprietary injunction and disclosure orders to prevent the dissipation of assets.
• Castle Trust Capital Plc v Hockey: Acting in urgent proceedings resulting in a freezing injunction and disclosure orders, leading to recovery of the misappropriated funds.
• Prescott Place Freeholders Limited and others v Batin and Donovan: Acting in proceedings in which the Court made adverse factual findings following cross‑examination concerning the fraudulent execution of key documents.
• Investment fund mandate: Acting for an investment fund in a claim alleging fraudulent misrepresentation relating to the financing of real estate development projects.

Michael has extensive experience in domestic and cross-border banking disputes, including regulated and unregulated lending, enforcement of securities, and receivership and possession litigation. He is frequently instructed where enforcement is contested, priorities are disputed, or the underlying lending arrangements are complex.

Selected cases

• SG Kleinwort Hambros Bank Limited v Gill: Acting for a private bank in possession and enforcement proceedings arising from default under secured lending. The borrowers sought to restrain enforcement by advancing a proposed redemption action, including an asserted right to redeem the loan by tendering proceeds said to derive from cryptocurrency holdings. The dispute raised issues as to the validity of tender, the bank’s entitlement to refuse purported redemption, and the interaction between contractual repayment obligations and anti‑money laundering requirements.
• Ultra‑prime London property dispute: Advising a member of a Middle Eastern royal family in connection with the sale of an ultra‑prime Central London property valued at approximately £25 million, involving contested mortgage enforcement and related applications for injunctive relief.
• Banque Havilland v Fiorentino: Acting for a private bank in possession and enforcement proceedings arising from default on a high‑value loan secured against ultra‑prime London residential property. The dispute concerned repayment of substantial mortgage arrears, proposed refinancing, and applications to delay enforcement, and resulted in the Court ordering possession of a Grade I‑listed Regent’s Park property.
• Tich Limited v National Westminster Bank Plc: Acting in a banking dispute arising from authorised push‑payment fraud, involving alleged failures in fraud controls and transaction processes.
• European bank mandate: Acting for a European bank in the recovery of a loan of approximately £20 million secured against assets located in the United Kingdom.
• Pitt and others v Bodani: Acting in complex proceedings arising from an offshore financing structure, raising issues of security enforcement, undue influence and subrogation. The case settled during the trial.
• Menon and Menon v Pask and Goode: Acting in a landmark receivership case addressing possession proceedings and the application of statutory protections under the Administration of Justice Act.
• Arkin and others v Marshall: Acting in complex mortgage and receivership litigation involving questions of priority, regulatory classification and enforcement. The proceedings settled before final determination.

Michael has a substantial property practice spanning landlord and tenant, real estate litigation, development and development finance disputes, and cases where planning, securities and property rights intersect. He is regularly instructed in complex, high-value disputes and in appellate litigation raising important points of principle.

Selected cases

• URS v BDW: Acting for the Secretary of State as intervener in Supreme Court proceedings raising significant issues concerning the operation of the Building Safety Act 2022 and its interaction with claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972.
• Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership and others: Acting in landmark Court of Appeal proceedings concerning the scope and operation of remediation contribution orders under section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022. The Court upheld the First‑tier Tribunal’s decision that it was just and equitable to require the original developer and its associated entities to contribute to the costs of remedying serious fire safety defects, and confirmed that such orders may apply to costs incurred before the Act came into force. The Supreme Court is due to hear the appeal in November 2026.
• Adriatic Land 5 Ltd v Various Leaseholders of Hippersley Point: Acting for Government in appellate proceedings concerning the scope and application of the Building Safety Act, including issues arising from its retrospective effect. The Supreme Court is due to hear the appeal in November 2026.
• Prescott Place Freeholders v Donovan and others: Acting in proceedings concerning the interpretation and operation of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, including the nature and priority of statutory rights affecting freeholders and leaseholders.
• Abacus Land 4 Limited v Bradley and Rhodes: Acting in the Court of Appeal in a dispute concerning the correct construction of service charge provisions and the applicable standard of contractual reasonableness.
• Healey v Fraine and others: Acting in Court of Appeal proceedings addressing adverse possession under the Land Registration Act and important issues concerning civil procedure and case management.
• Chuan Hui and others v K Group Holdings Inc and others: Acting in the Court of Appeal in a leading decision on service charges and the operation of management orders, including the allocation and recovery of liabilities following the termination of a statutory management regime.

Michael acts for claimants and defendants in professional negligence and related claims, including solicitors’ negligence, public authority duty claims, and high-value disputes arising from complex transactions. He is very experienced in pre-action strategy, pleadings, and trial and appellate advocacy where causation and loss are heavily contested.

Selected cases

• Group professional negligence action: Acting for a large group of claimants in a pre‑action group claim valued in excess of £100 million arising from an allegedly defective tax‑driven property structuring scheme, following challenge by HMRC and the assertion of substantial tax liabilities against participants.
• Aurium Real Estate London Ultra Prime Ltd v Mishcon de Reya LLP: Acting in a solicitors’ negligence claim valued at approximately £68 million, involving one of the earliest applications of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton to issues of scope of duty and loss.
• Primavera Associates Ltd v Hertsmere Borough Council: Acting in the successful defence of a negligence claim arising from the exercise of statutory planning functions.
• Claim against the Secretary of State: Acting in a £40 million claim against the Secretary of State involving allegations including negligent misstatement and other complex issues of public and commercial law.

Michael is Part II registered and has rights of audience in the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts. He is regularly instructed in high‑value, strategically complex litigation before the DIFC Courts and in disputes connected with the Middle East, often involving cross‑border asset recovery, trusts, fraud allegations and coordinated proceedings across multiple jurisdictions.

Abramenko and Misevich v Chuprin: Acting in extensive DIFC proceedings arising from a dispute exceeding USD 1 billion connected with an international online gaming business and a DIFC law trust holding assets and corporate interests worldwide. The litigation forms part of a wider suite of court proceedings and arbitrations in multiple jurisdictions and concerns the validity and operation of the trust and the alleged dissipation of trust assets totalling hundreds of millions of dollars.

Michael’s recent work in the matter includes:

• Obtaining a mid‑trial proprietary injunction restraining dealings with disputed trust bank accounts to preserve assets pending determination of the trial.
• Securing information orders in support of injunctive relief, directed to locating and protecting trust assets across multiple jurisdictions.
• Applications concerning passport and travel‑related restrictions, raised as part of the asset‑preservation strategy in the DIFC proceedings.
• An application to discharge of a confidentiality ring governing access to sensitive material during the trial, involving contested issues of confidentiality, disclosure and the use of what amounted to a closed-material procedure.

SKAT v Elysium and another: Acting in DIFC proceedings arising out of a cross‑border asset‑recovery effort connected with alleged tax fraud. The case raises complex and novel issues of DIFC jurisdiction, limitation and unjust enrichment, and involves attempts to trace assets through multiple corporate structures and jurisdictions, including to assets located in the United States. The proceedings form part of a contested, high‑value body of international commercial litigation conducted alongside parallel proceedings in other jurisdictions.