Michael Flatley lived ‘lifestyle of a Monaco millionaire’ by borrowing cash, courtroom advised

The Irish conventional dancer and choreographer rose to worldwide prominence performing Riverdance at Eurovision in 1994, earlier than occurring to create the stage present The Lord Of The Dance.

The manufacturing’s thirtieth anniversary tour is because of play in Dublin’s 3 Arena on February 5, persevering with in 2026 in plenty of nations together with the UK, Germany, Croatia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.

Switzer Consulting is taking authorized motion in a civil case towards the choreographer and dancer for alleged breach of contract, referring to an settlement the agency says was reached to permit it to run the dance reveals.

Switzer has already secured a short lived injunction to cease Mr Flatley from interfering with the reveals, with the dancer’s legal professionals having argued beforehand the efficiency was in peril of “falling apart” with out his involvement.

At The Chancery Court within the Royal Courts of Justice in Belfast on Wednesday, Gary McHugh KC, for Switzer, argued the injunction was mandatory to guard Switzer’s pursuits as a result of Mr Flatley’s monetary state of affairs would have left him unable to pay damages.

The authorized dispute hinges on a phrases of service settlement underneath which Mr Flatley transferred mental property rights for Lord Of The Dance to Switzer they usually in flip had been then required to offer enterprise administration companies to Mr Flatley similar to accounts and payroll.

For this, Mr Flatley agreed to pay the corporate £35,000 (€40,421) monthly for the primary 24 months, rising to £40,000 (€46,193) a month thereafter.

Mr McHugh learn a press release by Mr Flatley’s former monetary advisor Des Walsh who mentioned the dancer “knows why he finds himself in this position”.

He mentioned that Mr Flatley “has lived the lifestyle of a Monaco millionaire” by borrowing cash “as he did not even have the minimum cash required to open a residency package”.

“At the time Michael was advised that he should not move into that wealth circle as he simply did not have the resources,” the assertion learn.

“Michael ignored this advice and has essentially maintained this facade of wealth using other people’s monies ever since.”

The courtroom heard this was exacerbated by Mr Flatley’s “horrendous business mistakes, which cost him millions of additional borrowings”, at a time when “he had no income and was running out of room financially”.

Mr Walsh’s assertion added: “Instead of reining in his spending, adjusting his lifetime costs and cutting his cloth to suit his measure, Michael simply borrowed more money from more people.

“It was all about image.

“All of this borrowing was used to maintain a pretence of wealth.

“Michael would borrow money from anyone he could, and constantly put pressure on everyone looking for cash.”

His affidavit additionally claimed Mr Flatley’s “appetite for lifestyle cash was insatiable”, and he borrowed €75,000 for a birthday celebration and €50,000 to hitch Monaco Yacht Club.

David Dunlop KC, representing Mr Flatley, pushed again on the claims that Mr Flatley “was a poor manager of his own affairs and was a man with substantial debts”, saying “ad hominem” assaults had been made on his character.

Mr Dunlop argued that Switzer’s entitlement is proscribed to a price of £420,000 (€484,963) for the 60 remaining months of its phrases of service settlement with Mr Flatley.

He mentioned that “overnight” Flatley had cleared €500,000 that was being held by a solicitor in Dublin that may pay for damages to finish the contract with Switzer.

“While many averments were made about Mr Flatley’s financial affairs the proof is in the pudding,” he mentioned.

“He is the one who’s managed to generate and has made available half a million pounds.

“It’s not Mr Flatley who has the financial difficulties in this case, it is the plaintiff.”

Asserting that Switzer’s arguments had not addressed the “legal core” of the case, Mr Dunlop added: “To use a football metaphor, they attacked the player not the ball.”

Mr Dunlop additional pushed again on claims made by Switzer’s authorized staff that the monetary preparations within the contract had been basically to guard The Lord Of The Dance from Flatley’s monetary popularity.

He advised the courtroom: “Ultimately if there’s damage caused to the operation of the Lord Of The Dance when Mr Flatley is undertaking it, well it’s his property.

“If it suffers loss that’s really his problem.

“However if he’s right, and Switzer is a completely untrustworthy agent in whom he has lost all trust whatsoever for the next 12 months or thereabouts it will control the intellectual property.

“It could do untold damage to Mr Flatley’s intellectual property.

“It has no incentive to retain the value of the intellectual property because it’s only entitled to be paid a service fee.

“So Switzer has no skin in the game really order to protect the Lord Of The Dance.”

The judgment within the case might be heard on Thursday.