Michael Gleeson

Michael’s Financial Remedies practise often involves overseas assets, companies and family trusts. He regularly acts for intervenors including family members seeking to exclude assets from the matrimonial pot, or Trustees in bankruptcy.

Michael’s Trust of Land practice often encompasses proprietary estoppel claims together with other claims such as Probate and Inheritance Act (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 disputes. Michael accepts instructions on a direct public access basis in appropriate cases in both financial remedies and Trusts of Land matters and has received praise from his direct access clients: “Michael has been a strategic leader in my divorce with outstanding interpersonal skills. He intelligently navigated many complexities whilst keeping the end goal in sight and did not let interferences take the upper hand or distract but always looking to find practicable solutions.”

Notable Family Finance cases

At the Central Family Court, Michael successfully concluded by negotiation a substantial financial remedies case where the assets – some £11m – were partly held in overseas trusts and pensions and where specialist international tax advice was required.

Michael represents Defendant siblings in cross claims for Possession and Trusts of Land / Inheritance Act.

At the Family Court at Oxford, a farm case with a complex factual history, Michael successfully argued at trial that W’s capital claims could properly be met by a single lump sum from H without the court specifying how the funds might be raised.

Michael represented the Applicant Wife at the Central Family Court – where both sets of parents intervened in matrimonial proceedings – and obtained a favourable settlement for his client by way of round-table negotiations.

At the Central London County Court, Michael’s client firedthe first salvo in a Trusts of Land case by seeking without notice Freezing Orders (CPR25 ‘Mareva Injunctions’). This was an unusual case where a young man, allegedly as a victim of undue influence transferred property to a person he viewed as a spiritual adviser. Despite considerable delay – usually fatal in such cases – the application was successful, and the Freezing Order was continued by agreement in advance of the return date, securing the arena for negotiations.

Michael successfully represented as junior the intervening respondent husband’s father and sisters who sought a declaration of their beneficial interest in significant London real estate.