Home > Our people > Barristers > Michael Levenstein
Michael Levenstein
  • We take data and privacy issues very seriously. See our privacy policy.
  • This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

‘Michael’s charm, pragmatism and commerciality has the ability to put clients at ease. His depth of knowledge and ability to think on his feet make him a highly effective trial counsel.’

Senior Associate, Legal 500 Top Tier Firm

‘Michael is amongst the brightest, most charismatic and most thorough barristers I have worked with. He has a natural ability to articulate himself to the lay client in a style which is both effective and captivating. On every case, Michael has been a trustworthy, commercially astute and exceptionally hardworking team member, providing leadership and support in equal measure.’

Partner, Legal 500 Leading Firm

'He is a superb litigator and possesses all the precision and tenacity which leaves opponents tied up in knots.'

Partner, Legal 500 Leading Firm

Michael specialises in construction and engineering disputes and general commercial litigation. Michael’s cases frequently involve high-value and technically-complex disputes, both in the TCC and international litigation and arbitration. His commercial practice, which includes a number of high-profile and international clients, tends to focus on difficult issues of contractual interpretation, including heavily-amended standard form and third party agreements.

Michael serves as a member of the Executive Committee of TECBAR. He is also a TECBAR-accredited Adjudicator and Mediator.

In addition to his practice, Michael is a Visiting Lecturer and an LLM supervisor at The City Law School, University of London.

Outside of work, Michael was elected one of the youngest-ever Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts for his scholarly contributions to legal reform and philosophy. He also regularly enjoys squash and sailing, and is a classically-trained pianist.

Adjudication

Michael has wide-ranging experience with all aspects of adjudication, from jurisdictional issues to enforcement. In addition to being a TECBAR-accredited adjudicator, he regularly advises and participates in adjudication proceedings.

Recent work

  • Successfully acting on behalf of an almshouse charity in a substantial final account dispute (c. £1.2 million cross-claim) which raised issues including the locus standi of a third party funder to commence adjudication proceedings and the scope of a non-assignability clause.
  • Successfully acted on behalf of a fit-out contractor in recovering c. £450,000 following its employer failing to pay in accordance with an adjudicator’s valuation of the contractor’s final account. The case involved technical challenges to the adjudicator’s jurisdiction and allegations of falsified documents during the TCC enforcement proceedings.
  • Acting on behalf of a specialist contractor in a Final Account dispute for unpaid fees arising from the c. £200,000 refurbishment of a period Islington property amidst allegations of defective roof and parapet works.
  • Defending a firm of consultant engineers in respect of a highly-technical professional negligence claim (valued at c. £200,000) concerning the MEP design of a care home in Winchester. Factual issues included the heat load capacity of the boilers and the adequacy of the thermostatic valve design. An important legal issue raised was the extent to which design liability could arise where non-compliance with Employer’s Requirements was inevitable because of value engineering and where that value-engineered design was accepted by the lead consultant.
  • Successfully representing a firm of civil and structural engineers against an adjudication claim for £400,000 based on allegations of late, defective and incomplete design arising from an M&E appointment to a residential development in Horsham.
  • Successfully defending a firm of structural and civil engineers against a claim in professional negligence for c. £250,000 concerning the scope of its duty to warn of losses arising from refused planning permission and the causation requirements in res ipsa loquitur claims. The case is also noteworthy because it addresses the requirements for expert evidence in the context of adjudications where professional negligence is alleged.
  • Successfully represented the defendant homeowner in a TCC ‘smash and grab’ enforcement action for c. £100,000 by obtaining a stay of execution on the basis of dissipation of assets and ‘manifest injustice’, including the claimant contractor’s history of dissolving companies. This was followed by successfully acting for the homeowner in a subsequent ‘true value’ adjudication brought against the same contractor.
  • Kersfeld Developments (Bridge Road) Limited v Bray and Slaughter Limited [2017] EWHC 15 (TCC) – Junior Counsel (led by Michael Wheater) successfully acting for the contractor in enforcing a £1.2 million adjudicator’s decision in respect of an interim payment application. Other issues included whether an estoppel by convention had arisen between the parties, the validity of pay less notices and if the employer was entitled to stay judgment on the basis of insolvency and manifest injustice. In addition to confirming the courts’ orthodox approach toward adjudication enforcement, the judgment of O’Farrell J provided new analysis of section 111 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.
  • Acted on behalf of the employer against an adjudication claim for declaratory relief relating to the correct interpretation of the termination provisions of the JCT 2016 standard forms, including whether a contract administrator can issue a final termination notice and the availability of frustration as a ground for termination by the innocent party in such circumstances.
  • Acting on behalf of a scaffolding contractor for substantial unpaid invoices in respect of the supply of scaffolding and passenger goods hoists. The dispute concerns, inter alia, ‘battle of the forms’ and the applicable rate of hire following delays to the original completion date.
  • Successfully acting on behalf of an equestrian facility owner in a claim against a specialist design and build contractor concerning, inter alia, the adequacy of the proprietary manège riding surface, the stable foundation and the correct value of the final account.
  • Acting on behalf of a scaffolding subcontractor for substantial unpaid invoices arising from the renovation of an office building in Shoreditch. The proceedings raised issues including (1) the extent to which an adjudicator has jurisdiction to award a restitutionary remedy based upon a breach of contract claim, (2) whether an unpaid party must be contractually required to issue payment applications before being able to rely on section 110B(4) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, (3) the prohibition on issuing multiple applications within a given payment cycle, (4) the threshold for proving economic duress, (5) the permitted time frame in which a notice of suspension may be served and (6) the validity of payment notices issued post-termination of a contract yet which referred to pre-termination works.
  • Acted on behalf of a leading scaffolding contractor in respect of a c. £200,000 dispute involving, inter alia, the incorporation of terms concerning liquidated damages, the contractual method for valuing the works, off-hire rates and losses arising from the employer’s delay.
  • Successfully acted on behalf of a large plant hire and groundworks contractor in respect of a c. £200,000 payment dispute arising out of the construction of a wind farm in Devon. Specific issues include unpaid variations, the applicability of the dayworks rate and the incorrect measurement of quantities.

Construction Litigation

Michael has extensive experience across most areas of construction litigation and advisory work, ranging from professional negligence to health and safety regulations.

Early in his practice, Michael was a TECBAR marshal appointed to Coulson J (as he then was) and O’Farrell J in the Technology and Construction Court.

He is currently co-editor (with John Bradley and Simon Kerry) of the Construction Contractual Handbook (published by Construction Industry Publications), the British Constructional Steelwork Association’s flagship text on standard form construction contracts. The Construction Contractual Handbook provides analysis of key sections of most major standard forms, including recent editions of JCT, DOM/1 and DOM/2, NEC and ICC contracts.

Michael is also a contributing author to Sweet & Maxwell’s Construction Professional Indemnity Insurance.

Recent work

  • Currently acting on behalf of the contractor in a c. £2.5 million final account dispute arising out of, inter alia, repair and maintenance agreements relating to a series of care homes in Kent and Sussex. Issues include the recoverability of outstanding sums amidst a complex corporate group structure and the transfer of share capital between related companies following administration.
  • Currently acting on behalf of a subcontractor in respect of unpaid variations and loss and expense in excess of £350,000 arising from the construction of three blocks of student accommodation in southwest England. Additional issues include the conclusive effect of a practical completion certificate and the operation of the prevention principle insofar as instructions for variations amount to an extension of the original completion date.
  • Currently acting on behalf of the claimant contractor in a payment dispute arising out of the development of a luxury apartment block in Fulham. Issues include the scope of a project surveyor’s duty of impartiality and conflicts of interest when certifying the value of works.
  • Acting on behalf of a design and build contractor for unpaid fees arising from the c. £400,000 refurbishment and extension of a period property in West Hampstead. Substantive issues include the adequacy of the design and workmanship of the M&E system and tanking, alongside procedural matters such as security for costs.
  • Acting on behalf of a specialist contractor for substantial unpaid fees arising from the restoration of a large period property in Eaton Square. Issues included the burden of proving defective workmanship following the remediation and covering up of works and an agent’s authority in issuing instructions on site.
  • Currently acting on behalf of a contractor in its claim for unpaid variations arising from substantial landscaping works in excess of £450,000 carried out to a manor house in Suffolk. Issues include the authority of a project manager to orally instruct additional works. Currently acting on behalf of a contractor in its claim for unpaid variations amidst allegations of defective workmanship. Issues include the effect taking possession has on practical completion under standard RIBA terms, the operation of the prevention principle where Building Control access to certify practical completion is denied, the scope of surveyor expert evidence and limitation of liability pursuant to a novation agreement.
  • Currently advising a property developer in respect of a c. £400,000 claim concerning the undervaluation of residential units in accordance with a net equity value formula following their transfer to a holding company.
  • Advising a defence engineering firm on the terms of bespoke supplemental agreements to an NEC3 contract relating to loss and expense arising from the c. £2 million restoration of a medieval castle.
  • Currently acting on behalf of a homeowner in respect of defective and incomplete building works undertaken to an East Sheen property resulting in extensive cracking. Issues include failing to comply with engineering specifications requiring, inter alia, the use of hydraulic jacks to support the upper storeys.
  • Advised (with Charles Bagot QC) on the effect of a Final Order in the National Oilwell Varco v Constructiewerken litigation before the English Commercial Court in proceedings subsequently issued in the Court of Rotterdam. The dispute concerned, inter alia, the collapse of a derrick crane at a Singaporean port which caused over $20 million in loss and damage. Issues arising included whether an English procedural judgment could give rise to res judicata or cause of action estoppel abroad and whether companies within the same group acted as privies of each other.
  • Currently acting on behalf of an employer in a dispute concerning defective construction of an extension to a Camberley property. Issues include liability under the Defective Premises Act 1972 and a contractor’s workmanship duties to obtain structural calculations, safely dispose of asbestos and adequately install load-bearing steelwork.
  • Currently acting on behalf of a contractor in its counterclaim for unpaid building works totalling almost £250,000. Issues arising from the dispute include the tortious duty owed in respect of pure economic loss caused by defective workmanship and the relevance of the claimant’s intention to reinstate defective works in determining the proper measure of damages.
  • Acted in a six-party action on behalf of the freeholder of an office building in Soho which suffered significant water damage (valued in excess of £200,000) following the removal and replacement of pavement slabs during renovation works to a neighbouring property.
  • Currently acting on behalf of a subcontractor in a payment dispute arising out of the construction of a school in Southampton and concerning issues, inter alia, of the incorrect calculation of contra charges and the level of accuracy required under a JCT contract in obtaining control points and datum levels for the setting out of foundations and steelwork.
  • Advised a large fit-out contractor in respect of a claim relating to, inter alia, the diminution in value associated with the reduced size of a side return extension. Specific issues included the distinction between consequential losses and loss of profit in the context of an exclusion clause written on a business’s standard terms.
  • Successfully acted on behalf of the homeowner of a listed property against a firm of chartered surveyors in a professional negligence claim arising out of its failure to identify decayed load-bearing timber beams, risking the collapse of the western elevation.
  • Remedial works required the erection of scaffolding and supporting works and the replacement of bulging brick infill panels.
  • Advising and acting on behalf of a large scaffolding contractor in respect of c. £200,000 in unpaid fees relating to the supply of independent tied scaffolding and a two-tonne passenger hoist for each of three tower blocks in northwest London.
  • Acted on behalf of a large agricultural contractor in its claim for unpaid works in excess of £200,000 relating to drainage and trenching at a wind farm in Devon. The dispute concerned, inter alia, the valuation of additional works, the applicability of dayworks rates and the correct measurement of works listed in the bill of quantities.
  • Successfully acted on behalf of the homeowner in proceedings concerning the large-scale extension of a property in Northamptonshire. The dispute involved various issues including the definition of contingency costs and the incorporation of bespoke specifications.
  • Acted and advised on behalf of a major food manufacturer in respect of claims arising from the installation of a defective electric switch panel causing losses in excess of £900,000.
  • Successfully defended a claim for breach of contract arising from the installation of fire doors as part of a £600,000 extension and refurbishment project at a nursery school in Hampshire.
  • Successfully acted for the defendant chartered surveyor in a claim for unpaid fees arising from the 6-figure renovation and extension of a Surrey property.
  • Acted in a dispute arising from the 6-figure re-roofing and installation of new windows at a site on Worthing Pier concerning, inter alia, the treatment of VAT following non-compliant payment applications, subcontractor liability under the Construction Industry Scheme and breach of warranty post-completion of the works.
  • Successfully represented the City of Westminster in its claim for unpaid service charges relating to major refurbishment works to a block of flats which arose out of a dispute concerning whether the landlord had complied with the consultation requirements set out in section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Construction Arbitration

Michael is developing his practice in construction arbitration, both as sole and junior counsel.

Recent work

  • U v A – Sole Counsel (against Leading Counsel) defending a large contractor in a professional negligence claim valued in excess of £800,000. The dispute concerns the design and construction of a university’s indoor sports complex and the losses allegedly arising from, inter alia, interstitial blistering of its playing surfaces and the integrity of its ring beam foundation. Key issues in dispute include divestment of design responsibility, the causal mechanism behind subterranean vapour migration and the claimant’s entitlement to betterment in the context of a value-engineered design.
  • C and L v O – Junior Counsel acting for an engineering consultancy in a c. $2 billion dispute concerning the design and construction of two international airports in the Middle East. The scale of the proceedings is massive and the dispute raises numerous complex issues of law and evidence, including the duties of a design supervisor to timeously issue drawings pending details of the employer’s requirements and the binding nature of provisional sums in calculating the final cost of works packages.
  • E v A – Junior Counsel acting for an architectural firm in a professional negligence claim valued in excess of £2 million concerning defective designs for a museum in Devon. Issues in dispute concern the adequacy of design information provided (eg, as concerns fire protection) and concurrent causes of delay affecting the critical path.
  • C v G and Others – Junior Counsel (led by Paul Reed QC) advised and drafted on behalf of the successful global insurer in a €13m international arbitration concerning a defects exclusion under a Construction All Risks (CAR) policy relating to a major infrastructure project in Denmark. Among the key issues were the distinction between ‘damage’ and ‘defect’ for the purposes of CAR policies and the relevance of fortuity to coverage.

Property Damage

Michael has a specialist property damage practice, the following being a list of selected recent cases.

  • Currently acting for a contractor to recover substantial unpaid invoices for variations carried out to a large detached property in Kent. Issues include unlawful employer instructions to omit works and instruct subcontractors directly and allegations of defective workmanship by way of counterclaim (valued in excess of c. £300,000).
  • Successfully acted on behalf of the landlord in a two-day trial concerning losses flowing from abandonment of site and faulty waterproofing of an Oxfordshire rental property, obtaining judgment for the sum of c. £100,000.
  • Successfully acted on behalf of Transport for London in a claim for property damage to signalling equipment and outstanding fees due to TfL personnel arising from a motor vehicle accident at an intersection along Kew Road.
  • Successfully acted on behalf of a landlord in a two-day trial concerning property damage and significant rent arrears by the tenants of a London townhouse.
  • Successfully represented the claimant at trial in his claim for substantial rent arrears against a former tenant amid allegations of property damage.

Commercial Litigation

Michael has a successful practice extending across most types of commercial dispute, whether advisory or contentious, and acts on behalf of both businesses and individuals. He also has built up a niche costs and appellate practice (the latter recently including an appeal following a five-day trial in a c. £300,000 claim: Archibald & Anor v Alexander [2020] EWHC 1621 (Ch)).

He is well-versed in a wide number of procedural and substantive applications, ranging from pre-action disclosure and security for costs to urgent injunctive relief and enforcement proceedings.

Recent work:

  • Currently acting on behalf of a well-known land agency in respect of substantial introduction fees due on several plots of land sold for c. £19 million in and around Luton. The related cases involve issues of contract formation, intra-group corporate liability, misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.
  • Advised a developer in respect of a multi-million-pound property whether amendments to a standard form construction contract provided an indemnity for the fee arising from a section 106 agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. A specific issue raised was whether a unilateral undertaking entered into between the original owners of the property and local council amounted to an agreement.
  • Successfully acting on behalf of a wholesale distributor in a claim for specific performance of imported bespoke kitchen appliances following their non-acceptance in the UK on the bases of, inter alia, late delivery and economic duress.
  • Acting on behalf of a prominent London estate agent in defending an application to set aside a default judgment following sale of a Hyde Park mews house which raised issues, inter alia, of service of Court documents outside of the jurisdiction and the criteria for imposing a conditional payment into Court.
  • Advising in respect of the scope of representation and conflicts of interest in the ongoing Bluemountain v Yuksel litigation concerning claims in misrepresentation and deceit following the issuing of $200 million in senior notes and associated restructurings of the Turkish construction and infrastructure giant.
  • Successfully acting on behalf of an applicant in obtaining non-party costs in excess of £50,000 against the director of the respondent company whose claim had been struck out for non-payment of security for costs and where the director had a history of dissolving associated companies and injecting capital into the respondent in order to finance ongoing litigation.
  • Successfully appealing against a refusal to grant security for costs for £100,000 in circumstances where, inter alia, there had been a finding at first instance that the defendant’s counterclaim had ‘independent vitality’.
  • Defending a nursing home against a substantial claim for unpaid invoices for the supply of natural gas. The case raises complex legal arguments concerning, inter alia, the scope of the legitimate interest exception in White and Carter v McGregor, breach of warranty of authority and the correct interpretation of ‘deemed contracts’ as set out in Schedule 2B of the Gas Act 1986.
  • Acted on behalf of the defendant in a dispute concerning the hire rates for portable air conditioning units at his business premises. Issues included the incorporation of terms post- formation of hire agreement and the circumstances in which a settlement agreement can disapply the rule in Foakes v Beer regarding part-payment of a debt.
  • Successfully acting on behalf of a prominent restaurateur in relation to the proper interpretation of CPR, rule 85.5 in the context of monies paid by a third party non-debtor and where such payment was made under duress.
  • Acted on behalf of the claimant in an action against a high-end wedding planner and caterer for failing to comply with the bridal family’s bespoke specifications, including dietary-restricted menus, seating plans and sufficient waiting staff for over 500 guests.
  • Defended a claim (both at first instance and on appeal) for substantial outstanding invoices arising from the alleged outsourcing of human resources personnel. The case raised numerous procedural and evidential issues, including the circumstances in which a payment into Court can be ordered as a precondition to the set aside of a default judgment. The defendant succeeded on this point at his first appeal and the matter was subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal regarding, inter alia, the extent to which the relevance and probative value of additional evidence should be considered when applying the test set out in Ladd v Marshall, especially where the respondent’s claim may be unlawful.
  • Successfully set aside a default judgment against a professional letting and managing agent concerning claims of conversion and uncollected rent and involving issues of undisclosed agency, breach of warranty of authority and whether attempts to wind up the company amounted to an abuse of process.
  • Acted on behalf of the defendant in a counterclaim arising from the alleged conversion of five motor vehicles which raised issues of contractual liens, bailment and unjust enrichment. Successfully represented a high-end publisher in its claim for unpaid invoices against a bespoke retailer advertising in a commemorative yearbook for Rolls-Royce.

Michael also has developed a niche costs practice, a selection of cases below:

  • Humphryes and others v Ringway Infrastructure and Ringway Jacobs (ET Nos. 3301019/2015, 2302194/2015, 3302271/2015) – Successfully acted on behalf of a nationwide firm of solicitors in proceedings arising from one of the largest wasted costs applications to date. Subsequent instructions included case management of a group action consisting of hundreds of members in claims for unpaid holiday benefits in the Employment Appeal Tribunal: Minster Law v Olive and Ringway Infrastructure & Ors (UKEAT/0034/17/JOJ), Minster Law v Humphryes and Lafarge Aggregates & Ors (UKEAT/0035/17/JOJ) and Ringway Infrastructure & Ors v Humphryes and Minster Law (UKEAT/0036/17/JOJ).
  • Humphryes and others v Lafarge Aggregates & Ors (ET No. 3304540/2010) (led by PJ Kirby QC) – Acted on behalf of a firm of solicitors in defending one of the largest wasted costs applications to date (in excess of £1 million). The case concerned, inter alia, the scope of the Employment Tribunal’s wasted costs jurisdiction, the procedural nature of wasted costs hearings and their assessment and the correct interpretation of the three-stage test in Ridehalgh v Horsfield [1994] Ch 205.

Companies, Joint Ventures & Partnerships

Michael’s interest and experience in this area is underlined by the fact that he is Visiting Lecturer and an LLM supervisor in Company Law at The City Law School, University of London. His seminars cover the major topics within the subject, including the constitution of companies, share capital, directors’ duties, validation orders and corporate insolvency.

Joint venture and partnership work also play an important role in Michael’s caseload.

Recent work

  • Successfully defending a claim brought by a Luxembourgish Societas Europaea on the basis of its lack of locus standi to issue proceedings relating to coverage under a contractor’s employers’ liability policy.
  • Advising residential property developers in respect of the right to commence proceedings and recover damages against a contractor in liquidation in the context of a bespoke dispute resolution clause.
  • Represented a specialist contractor in a claim against an offshore corporate owner of a Belgravia property where the parties disputed the existence of an undisclosed principal and the limits of the company director’s authority.
  • Successfully represented an antique jewellery dealer in a partnership dispute
  • concerning, inter alia, breach of contract, business tenancies, joint ventures and a claim in restitution.
  • Successfully acting on behalf of a residents’ freehold and management company in the First-tier Tribunal which concerned a mews house development in Fulham. Issues included the lawfulness of steps taken by the directors to arrange insurance of and repair works to the estate.
  • Acting on behalf of a well-known health spa resort in dismissing a winding up petition following default judgment against a former trade debtor.
  • Successfully acted on behalf of a large wholesale distributor in extending an administration order to continue proceedings for £1.5 million in unpaid goods supplied to Debenhams. The application raised issues of the distributor’s right to extend administration where the net proceeds of litigation had been assigned.

Professional Negligence

In addition to his frequent instruction in construction professional negligence claims, Michael’s expertise also includes advising and acting on behalf of legal and financial professionals.

Recent cases

  • Advised in respect of a property developer claiming against its former solicitors for failing to properly draft an indemnity clause in a multi-million-pound construction contract.
  • Humphryes and others v Ringway Infrastructure and Ringway Jacobs (ET Nos. 3301019/2015, 2302194/2015, 3302271/2015) – Successfully acted on behalf of a nationwide firm of solicitors in proceedings arising from one of the largest wasted costs applications to date.
  • Subsequent instructions included case management of a group action consisting of hundreds of members in claims for unpaid holiday benefits in the Employment Appeal Tribunal: Minster Law v Olive and Ringway Infrastructure & Ors (UKEAT/0034/17/JOJ), Minster Law v Humphryes and Lafarge Aggregates & Ors (UKEAT/0035/17/JOJ) and Ringway Infrastructure & Ors v Humphryes and Minster Law (UKEAT/0036/17/JOJ).
  • Humphryes and others v Lafarge Aggregates & Ors (ET No. 3304540/2010) (led by PJ Kirby QC) – Acted on behalf of a firm of solicitors in defending one of the largest wasted costs applications to date (in excess of £1 million). The case concerned, inter alia, the scope of the Employment Tribunal’s wasted costs jurisdiction, the procedural nature of wasted costs hearings and their assessment and the correct interpretation of the three-stage test in Ridehalgh v Horsfield [1994] Ch 205.
  • Acted on behalf of homeowners in a c. £250,000 claim against their former solicitors for professional negligence arising from their failure to advise in respect of damp prior to the exchange of contracts.
  • Advising and acting on behalf of a 7-party claim in professional negligence against a firm of accountants for, inter alia, inadequate and delayed financial analysis concerning the cash flow of private trusts, miscalculation of tax due on foreign income, failure to advise on VAT registration status and late filing of tax returns to HMRC.
  • Acted for a landlord against a professional letting and managing agent in a claim for breach of contract and negligence arising from failures to conduct credit checks of prospective tenants, obtain guarantors on their behalf, indemnify lost rental income and repair costs and comply with the ARLA Code of Practice.

Publications

As Sole Author

  • Maxims of Equity: A Juridical Critique of the Ethics of Chancery Law (New York: Algora, 2014)
  • The End of Knowledge: A Discourse on the Unification of Philosophy (New York: Algora, 2013)

As Editor

  • Construction Contractual Handbook, with John Bradley and Simon Kerry (British Constructional Steelwork Association and Construction Industry Publications, 2019)

As Contributor

  • Construction All Risks Insurance (Sweet & Maxwell, Contributor to Paul Reed QC’s Construction All Risks Insurance, Third edition, 2021)
  • Construction Professional Indemnity Insurance (Sweet & Maxwell, 2018)
  • Insurance Broking Practice and the Law, edited by CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang (Informa loose-leaf), 2015-present

Articles & seminars

Articles

  • ‘Justice delayed might be justice denied—but for which side? A look at Nigeria v Process & Industrial Developments’, Practical Law Arbitration, 12 October 2020
  • ‘Back to square one? Statutory interpretation versus commercial futility after Bresco v Lonsdale’, Practical Law Construction, 1 July 2020
  • State Bank of India and Others v Mallya [2020] EWHC 96 (Ch): A Case Analysis’, Corporate Rescue and Insolvency, Vol 13, Issue 3 (June 2020)
  • Burnden Holdings v Fielding: A Case Analysis’, Corporate Rescue and Insolvency, Vol 12, Issue 5 (1 October 2019)
  • ‘Nothing to Speak Of: When Silence is Golden after Woodward v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution’, Practical Law Construction, 19 August 2019
  • Montgold Capital LLP v Agnieska Ilska and Others: A Case Analysis’, Corporate Rescue and Insolvency, Vol 11, Issue 6 (December 2018)
  • Loson v Stack and Newlyn plc [2018] EWCA Civ 803: A Case Analysis’, Corporate Rescue and Insolvency, Vol 11, Issue 3 ( June 2018)
  • ‘What’s the Damage? Revisiting the Correct Measure of Loss in Negligent Surveyor Cases’, Practical Law Construction, 1 August 2018
  • ‘Where Angels Fear to Tread: The Limits of Good Faith in Commercial Contracts’, Journal of International Banking and Financial Law, Vol 32, Issue 9 (October 2017)
  • ‘A Commentary on Kersfield Developments v Bray and Slaughter [2017] EWHC 15 (TCC)’, Lexology, 7 February 2017
  • Bailey v Angroves Pty [2016] UKSC 47: A Case Analysis’, Lexology, 28 October 2016 ‘Going Nuclear: Britain’s Big Bet on Hinkley Point’, Practical Law Construction, 7 October 2016
  • ‘From Student to Pupil: How to Sell Yourself to Chambers’, The Times, 16 October 2014
  • ‘The End of Ethics? A Quest for Moral Clarity and Consolidation’, Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, Winter 2013
  • ‘The Redemption of Equity: An Examination of Lingering Defects in the Corpus of Chancery Law’, Per Incuriam (Cambridge Law Society Review), 87th Ed., Michaelmas 2013

He is also a regular contributor to Corporate Rescue and Insolvency (LexisNexis).

Seminars

In addition to his role as Visiting Lecturer at The City Law School, University of London, Michael frequently hosts and participates in talks relating to academic topics and legal practice, a selection appearing below:

  • ‘What Brexit Means for Litigators: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments’ (Hardwicke, April 2021)
  • ‘Payment Applications and Notices in the Final Account’ (Hardwicke, February 2021)
  • ‘JCT Provisions and COVID: Force Majeure, Relevant Events and Relevant Matters’ (Hardwicke, February 2021)
  • ‘That Was the Year That Was: Adjudications and Enforcement in a COVID World’ (Hardwicke, January 2021)
  • ‘Construction Contracts in the Age of COVID: A Look at Frustration and Force Majeure’ (UK Construction & Projects Knowledge Management Association, December 2020)
  • ‘Construction Professionals, COVID and the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010’ (Hardwicke, November 2020)
  • ‘Analysing Problem Questions in Pupillage Interviews’ (The City Law School, November 2020)
  • ‘Damages for Loss of Chance in Commercial Claims’ (Hardwicke, September 2020)
  • ‘Closed for Business: COVID-19 and its Impact on Commercial Contracts’ (Lewis Nedas, June 2020)
  • ‘Business as Usual? Adjudication amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic’ (Hardwicke, June 2020)
  • ‘Challenges to Adjudication Enforcement’ (Hardwicke, March 2020)
  • ‘Construction Law Update’ (Norton Rose Fulbright, October 2019) ‘Practical Completion after Mears v Costplan’ (Hardwicke, July 2019)
  • ‘Was Grove Developments v S&T Right?’ (Panel Debate, Hardwicke, July 2019)   ‘Loss of Chance in Professional Negligence’ (Reynolds Colman Bradley, May 2019)
  • ‘Limitations of Liability and Unreasonable Terms in Standard Form Construction Contracts’ (Squire Patton Boggs, November 2018)
  • ‘From the Ground Up: Construction Basics for Insolvency Practitioners’ (Hardwicke, November 2018)
  • ‘Defects and Final Account Claims’ (Hardwicke, September 2018) ‘Recoverable Losses in Property Damage Cases’ (Hardwicke, April 2018)
  • ‘Tactical and Practical Considerations in Legal Analysis’ (The City Law School, November 2017)
  • ‘Challenging Jurisdiction in Adjudication’ (Hardwicke, October 2017) ‘Payment Provisions in Construction Contracts’ (Hardwicke, March 2017)
  • ‘Reinterpreting the Doctrine of Necessity: When Should it be Legal to Break the Law?’ (University of Oxford, Hilary Term 2017, based on forthcoming monograph)
  • ‘Recovery of Cost of Reinstatement in Property Damage Insurance Policies’ (Hardwicke, January 2017)
  • ‘Strike Out and Summary Judgment: Tactical Considerations in Civil Litigation’ (Hardwicke, November 2016)
  • ‘Tackling the Practicalities of Advising Commercial Clients’ (The City Law School, November 2016)
  • ‘Issues of Enforcement and Insolvency arising from Construction Adjudication’ (Hardwicke, November 2016)
  • ‘Addressing the Practical Issues of a Legal Problem’ (The City Law School, June 2016) ‘Estoppel by Convention: A shield, a sword, or a little bit of both? A Brief Look at the Mears v Shoreline Trilogy’ (Hardwicke, October 2015)

Professional associations

  • Society of Construction Law
  • TECBAR (Executive Committee)
  • British Insurance Law Association
  • London Common Law and Commercial Bar Association
  • Bar Pro Bono Unit

Qualifications

  • LL.M. (Distinction, highest mark in year) – The City Law School, London
  • Bar Professional Training Course (‘Very Competent’) – The City Law School, London
  • MA (with Honours and Commonwealth Scholarship) in Law – Trinity College, Cambridge (graduated in two years)
  • MSc in Comparative Social Policy – St Cross College, Oxford
  • BA in political science, summa cum laude – University of Pennsylvania (graduated two years early)

Scholarships

  • Wolfson Scholarship
  • Cassel Scholarship
  • Scholar, Denning Society
  • Hardwicke Entrance Scholarship

Whilst a BPTC student, Michael was one-half of the team which won the national Inter-Provider Moot Competition, hosted by Lincoln’s Inn and which took place across four rounds. The topic of the final round was disgorgement of profits and loss of amenity in contractual breach claims. He similarly was one-half of the winning team awarded the Lincoln’s Inn Debating Shield for 2015.

CSR

Michael is an active member of the Bar Pro Bono Unit and Lincoln’s Inn, where he regularly volunteers as an advocacy tutor and pupillage mentor.

Menu