Profile

Michael is a barrister specialising in intellectual property, insolvency and general commercial litigation.

His intellectual property practice comprises copyright, designs, trade marks and trade names, passing off, patents and confidential information.

In his insolvency practice, he acts for trustees in bankruptcy, liquidators, creditors and debtors.

Michael has a reputation as an excellent litigation strategist and tactician. His forensic analysis of documents is meticulous and he has a keen eye for the unusual. He is known for his thorough and well considered advice and his strong commercial focus. He is an effective and persuasive advocate whose cross-examination can turn a trial.

Michael also deals with company law matters, commercial matters and general chancery work.

Recent Cases of interest
Re 7 Companies 2016 (High Court) – Michael appeared on behalf of 7 corporate respondents to winding up petitions and obtained temporary injunctions to restrain advertisement on purely discretionary grounds (i.e. there was no dispute as to the debt).
Helme -v- Maher [2015] EWHC 3151 (IPEC) – Michael appeared for the Claimant in a passing off case arising out of an abortive franchising enterprise.
Re A Company No 5381 of 2015 (High Court) – Michael obtained an injunction restraining presentation of a winding up petition, and successfully had the same struck out with costs.
Limitless Mobile -v- Singh [2015] EWHC 3114 (QB) – Michael’s client was caught up in a company/ex-employee dispute after his details were wrongfully used on a domain name register without his knowledge. Michael successfully applied to set aside a series of orders made in the absence of his client and without his knowledge, and the claim against him was dismissed.
Re A Company No 5656 of 2015 (High Court) – Michael obtained an injunction restraining presentation of a winding up petition, and successfully had the same struck out with costs.
Re A Trade Mark Application (Intellectual Property Office) – Michael appeared before the IPO for the opponent in a contested trade mark application. The opposition was based on the opponent’s earlier mark on the grounds contained in s.5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Trade Marks Act 1996. The Applicant pleaded non-use and cross-applied for revocation. The matter settled before judgment.
Re A Company No 7659 of 2014 (High Court) – Michael obtained an injunction restraining advertisement of a winding up petition, and successfully had the same struck out with costs.
Weatherford Global Products Ltd -v- Hydropath Holdings Ltd [2014] EWHC 2725 (TCC) – Michael was led by Michael Booth QC for the Defendant and Third Party in a claim for breach of warranty in relation to products manufactured for the oil industry.
Re A Company 2014 (High Court) – Michael obtained a without notice injunction restraining presentation of a winding up petition.
Re Softy Touch (Intellectual Property Office) – Michael appeared before the IPO for an applicant seeking invalidation of the trade mark “SOFTY TOUCH”.
Dhillon -v- Suman 2013/2014 (Birmingham County Court, HHJ Cooke) – Michael appeared for the Claimant on a 3-day trial of a preliminary issue on the existence of a partnership and on 1-day partnership account. The Claimant recovered in excess of his initial claim value and was awarded costs on the indemnity basis.
Magical Marking & anr -v- Ware & Kay LLP & oths [2013] – Led by Giles Fernando in a 13-day trial on solicitors’ negligence relating to advice on company law and intellectual property infringement.
MSL & Oths -v- Clearwell [2012] EWCA Civ 1440 – Led by Michael Booth QC in an appeal to the Court of Appeal and an application for permission to appeal on grounds which had been refused below.
MSL & Oths -v- Clearwell [2012] EWHC 3707 (QB) – Led by Michael Booth QC on a 4-day trial relating to the existence and enforceability of an oral agreement to share the proceeds of a IP licence granted to a third party.
Seaton & Oths -v- Seddon & Oths [2012] EWHC 735 (Ch) – Led by John Brisby QC on a 4-day application to strike out a claim against solicitors, which contained an important legal point on the interplay between limitation and mental capacity.


Contact the Expert

Complete the form below to contact the expert directly.






 
load new code