Michael v Michael (No 2)

Michael v Michael (No 2)

It is just and convenient to appoint receivers over the respondent's shares and company assets for enforcement of judgment debts, given respondent's refusal to comply, de facto control, and the complexity of asset structure hindering normal enforcement.

Parties
Applicant: Stalo Michael; Respondent: Mario Michael
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Enforcement Application (financial Remedies) / Judgment on Application for Appointment of Receivers
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Financial Orders, Appointment of Receivers, Corporate Asset Control, Maintenance Pending Suit, Legal Services Payments, Costs Orders
Family Law Civil Procedure Enforcement of Financial Orders Appointment of Receivers Corporate Asset Control Maintenance Pending Suit Legal Services Payments Costs Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stalo Michael

Applicant

Mario Michael

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Enforcement Application (financial Remedies) / Judgment on Application for Appointment of Receivers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether receivers should be appointed over assets for enforcement of judgment debts
  2. 2 Whether the assets in question are legally and beneficially owned by the respondent
  3. 3 Whether receivership is appropriate given the structure of the assets and respondent's conduct

Ratio Decidendi

It is just and convenient to appoint receivers over the respondent's shares and company assets for enforcement of judgment debts, given respondent's refusal to comply, de facto control, and the complexity of asset structure hindering normal enforcement.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Appointment of Hannah Davie and Ami Sweeney of Grant Thornton UK LLP as receivers over respondent's 550 shares in Michael Bros Limited, 1 share in Hartsfield Investments UK Limited, and assets of Property Empire Limited.
  • Liberty to apply to discharge or vary the order at pre-trial review.