Michael Hartman

Door Tenant

Introduction

Michael Hartman practices in the civil bar mainly in Chancery matters involving contracts, trusts, and fraud.

Background and Expertise

Michael’s strengths lie in his analysis of legal concepts and his determination to get a favourable result for his clients. In Court he represents his client’s lawful rights as forcefully as the law allows and puts the arguments of his client in even stronger terms.

As a long-established practitioner, he is now frequently called upon to represent clients facing or bringing difficult and complex claims. The value of these claims range from thousands to many millions of pounds.

Some examples include cases where the client felt he must claim:

  1. A client had made some mortgage arrangements with a bank, worth about £1m in borrowings. He later realised the repayments were unfair to him. The bank eventually offered a settlement agreement but when he came to work out the details, the bank did not disclose what were to be the actual dates for maturity and repayment. The settlement somehow concealed that he still could not repay the loans within the time periods claimed by the bank. One real problem is that Courts do not willingly overturn settlement agreements. But there was an issue on which he could fight to the Court of Appeal; it turned on the interpretation of the Property Act which required, in complex terms, every term of his mortgage to be in writing and here the dates for repayment of the mortgages had not been formally agreed. The bank is still having problems complying with its terms.

  1. In another case, a solicitor befriended her client and they moved in together in her house. She loaned him say £1million. He furnished his properties and her new house with his valuable antique furniture; worth say £1.5m. When their relationship ended she obtained his properties as repayment for her loans. 9 years later and 5 years after claiming it, he was still seeking to recover the value of his furniture which she denies entirely. It now turns on whether the Supreme Court is willing to rule that she has to prove what happened to his furniture.

  1. Counsel was asked what happens when a Liechtenstein trustee of a trust decides after the death of the benefactor that it will not pay out the trust monies and assets, say nearly $1billion held on discretionary trusts, to any of the beneficiaries. At the same time, the trust monies were being depleted at an alarming rate by the trustees. Once again counsel was asked to advise on the interpretation of contracts, statutes and trusts. Not easy when, as in Liechtenstein, the law is that a discretionary beneficiary has no right to make any claims on the trust. After establishing the true meaning of the trust, the battle became one of nailing down the missing money and the missing trustees. Even Liechtenstein Trusts can be challenged Internationally.

Reported cases

PAUL CHARLES MARKHAM v MOIRA O'HARA (Formerly MOIRA KARSTEN) (2019)

A Judge had not erred in principle in ordering only a partial and conditional discharge of a worldwide freezing injunction imposed on a judgment debtor. The requirements for imposing the injunction remained in place, including the real risk of dissipation of assets by the debtor, who had failed to comply with orders made by the English and French courts and had done all he could to resist enforcement.

[2019] EWCA Civ 397

CA (Civ Div) (Underhill LJ, Hamblen LJ) 19/03/2019

References: LTL 19/3/2019 : [2019] 3 WLUK 285

O'HARA v PAUL MARKHAM (2018)

A judgment debtor's application for an account of credits due to him against his judgment debt was refused as being an abuse of process and totally without merit. He had repeatedly brought unsuccessful applications against the judgment creditor, with arguments completely opposed to his stance at the trial, and he threatened her with further litigation, when she had no prospect of recovering the sums due from him. It was hard to imagine an applicant for equitable relief with less clean hands.

[2018] EWHC 3796 (QB)

QBD (Males J) 13/11/2018

References: LTL 14/11/2018 EXTEMPORE : [2018] 11 WLUK 176

ANTHONY JAMES COLE v LIAM PAUL PARIS HOWLETT & ORS (2017)

It had been an illegitimate exercise of the court's power under CPR r.3.1(7) to vary an order so that a bankrupt claimant was allowed to amend his claim form and particulars of claim to plead an assignment of the causes of action to him by the Official Receiver where there had not been a material change of circumstances; rather, the judge had simply changed his mind. The possibility of such an assignment happening had already been contemplated by the judge in refusing an adjournment on the issue.

CIVIL PROCEDURE - CPR - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - INSOLVENCY

CA (Civ Div) (Gloster LJ, Lewison LJ) 20/07/2017

References: LTL 21/7/2017 EXTEMPORE : [2018] BPIR 49 : [2017] 7 WLUK 464

(1) ATUL KUMAR BHARDWAJ (2) SUPERNA SAREEN BHARDWAJ v ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND (2017)

An issue that a settlement agreement was too uncertain to be enforced had been abandoned at trial and permission to raise that issue on appeal was refused. In any event an appeal on that issue would have failed: the parties had proceeded on the common understanding that new loan facilities would have the same repayment dates as the facilities that were being replaced and the settlement agreement was to be interpreted on that basis.

CIVIL PROCEDURE - BANKING AND FINANCE - REAL PROPERTY - CONTRACTS

[2017] EWHC 340 (Ch)

Ch D (John Baldwin QC) 28/02/2017

References: LTL 8/3/2017

AHMAD & ORS v BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC & ORS (2016)

A cause of action estoppel created by the dismissal of a defence and counterclaim to a bank's claim for payment of a company's debts under personal guarantees precluded the making of a fresh claim by the guarantors against the bank for damages for an alleged breach of an agreement regarding the appointment of receivers.

CIVIL PROCEDURE - BANKING AND FINANCE

[2016] EWCA Civ 602

CA (Civ Div) (Lewison LJ, Gloster LJ) 24/06/2016

References: LTL 24/6/2016

BELLCROWN ASSOCIATES LTD v ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC (2015)

A master had been entitled to refuse an application for a further extension of time for service of a claim form where the application had been made late, and there were no exceptional circumstances that would have justified an extension.

CIVIL PROCEDURE

[2015] EWHC 1845 (QB)

QBD (Judge Seymour QC) 17/03/2015

References: LTL 18/3/2015 EXTEMPORE

PHONEPAYPLUS LTD v (1) WAQAR ASHRAF (2) MAHMOONA HUSSAIN (2014)

An enforcement authority's power to impose fines on premium-rate telecommunications providers was not ultra vires. Althoug the Codcode of practice under which the authority acted not refer to the restrictions on imposing fines in the Communications Act 2003 s.123, Those restrictions applied as if expressly incorporated in the Code.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

[2014] EWHC 4303 (Ch)

Ch D (R Hollington QC) 19/12/2014

References: LTL 2/1/2015 : [2015] Bus LR 567

HELAL UDDIN ABBAS (Claimant) v SHAH YOUSUF (Defendant) & SALEHA ALI (Respondent) (2014)

An application by the defendant to a libel action for a non-party disclosure order was premature: he had not served a defence, meaning that he had as yet no "case" for the purposes of the CPR r.31.17(3)(a).

DEFAMATION - CIVIL PROCEDURE

[2014] EWHC 662 (QB)

QBD (Tugendhat J) 18/03/2014

References: LTL 24/3/2014

Read more Reported cases

Module Icon

PROFILE: Michael Hartman

Year called

1976

Specialisms

Financial and Corporate law

Module Icon

Civil Fraud

Direct access

Yes

Memberships

Lincoln's Inn

Download Profile