We were appointed as court-appointed receivers in Michael v Michael [2024] EWFC 463; [2025] EWFC 244; [2025] EWFC 245, a long-running and highly contentious matrimonial dispute following a 22-year marriage.
The case concerned a substantial property and corporate asset base, with assets valued at approximately £38 million. The husband, a prolific property investor and developer, claimed those assets were held on trust for third parties and therefore fell outside the matrimonial estate. In a significant ruling in August 2024 (No.1), HHJ Hess sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge rejected that position in unequivocal terms, finding the trust to be a sham:
“In my view the whole situation was false, designed to mislead and the ‘trust’ and its documents were a sham. There was no settlor. There was no trust. What happened was that the husband was investing his own assets into a structure for which the trust document was a cover story. In reality he was the true beneficial owner of the assets at all times.”
Notwithstanding that finding, the husband continued to obstruct enforcement. Following his persistent failure to comply with court orders, and his failure to satisfy an interim judgment for maintenance arrears and legal costs totalling approximately £1.3 million, the court took the unusual step of appointing us as receivers at an early stage of the financial remedy proceedings. The receivership was not merely an administrative mechanism, it proved to be the decisive enforcement lever.
The challenge
The husband operated a property development business, and we were initially appointed over shares in certain companies within that structure, as well as directly over a number of property assets.
The initial enforcement strategy envisaged the sale of selected properties to satisfy the wife's interim judgment. Shortly after appointment, however, a secured lender unexpectedly called in its debt, relying on cross-guarantees spanning the entire property portfolio. This fundamentally altered the enforcement picture and required an urgent return to court to preserve the receivership and maintain control of the assets.
Asset realisation was further obstructed by:
- Uncooperative directors and connected parties
- Opaque intercompany arrangements and disputed loan positions
- Close relationships between the husband, managing agents and prospective purchasers, which undermined confidence in valuations and sales processes
During the course of the receivership, the wife also obtained her final divorce award of £15 million, and our receivership was extended to include enforcement and collection of that award.
How we helped
Strategic stakeholder management
We engaged constructively with the secured lender, establishing open and consistent dialogue and negotiating continued recognition of the receivership. This engagement enabled the receivers to remain in office, preserve control of the assets, and facilitate the orderly collection of rental income while servicing secured debt, preventing a forced lender-led disposal that would have significantly diminished recoveries.
Preservation and protection of value
We successfully managed six rental properties over a period exceeding 13 months, ensuring uninterrupted rent collection and preventing value erosion during prolonged legal uncertainty. Maintaining operational control and protecting income streams safeguarded the asset base while wider enforcement strategies were pursued.
Forensic and investigative expertise
We undertook detailed forensic analysis of intercompany balances, loan positions, shareholdings and historic transactions across the group. This work identified viable routes to realisation that were not immediately apparent, despite sustained resistance and deliberately obscured arrangements. By reconciling intercompany debts and challenging connected-party positions, we applied pressure that materially advanced recoveries.
Legal strategy and enforcement leverage
Working closely with legal team and counsel, we deployed targeted legal and commercial pressure to counter ongoing obstruction. The critical step was obtaining enhanced court powers, extending the receivership's reach to subsidiary shareholdings and intercompany debts. This significantly widened the scope of accountability, bringing business associates and family members within the enforcement perimeter.
These expanded powers changed the focus for the husband. The receivership, with its extended reach, transformed the enforcement position from a dispute about specific assets into one that threatened the entire business structure he had spent years constructing. That shift in exposure, not any single court hearing, is what brought him to the negotiating table.
The result
Through coordinated legal strategy, forensic analysis and sustained enforcement pressure, we secured an extension of the receivership with expanded powers over subsidiary assets and intercompany positions.
Faced with escalating court scrutiny and an enforcement perimeter that continued to widen, the husband ultimately entered into settlement negotiations. The final divorce award of £15 million was made by HHJ Hess in June 2025. The husband’s subsequent application to the Court of Appeal was dismissed, with Lord Justice Moylan refusing permission to appeal on all but three narrow grounds, and those grounds were also dismissed. The sham trust finding stands.
The dispute was resolved significantly sooner than would otherwise have been possible, delivering material recovery for the wife and enabling payment of professional costs. For advisers, the case demonstrates what receivership can achieve: it removes the obstructing party's control of the assets, introduces judicial accountability into every layer of a complex structure, and, as here, creates conditions in which settlement becomes the rational choice.
About our team
