A man described as a solicitor has been warned that he faces a civil restraint order if he continues ‘unmeritorious proceedings or applications’ in a dispute with barristers following litigation arising from a Michael Jackson tribute concert.
Ruling in the High Court in Michael Henry v BSB, Mrs Justice Whipple turned down Michael Henry’s request for a judicial review not to refer two barristers to the Bar Standards Board. The judgment describes Henry as 'a solicitor specialising in entertainment and intellectual property law'. The Gazette understands that Henry is no longer on the roll. He has no connection with either of two solicitors of that name currently listed as practising in England and Wales or with the IP specialist of that name based in Dallas, Texas.
Whipple said the BSB’s Professional Conduct Committee was ‘entitled to conclude’ that there was insufficient evidence to prove there had been any misrepresentation.
The dispute originated from an action which came to court in 2012 over a Michael Jackson tribute concert at Cardiff’s Millennium Stadium the year before. In the action, finance company Quick Draw successfully sued Global Live Events over a loan. Henry was named as a defendant; he was refused permission to appeal.
Henry claimed that the opposition’s legal team made false representations during the trial. He referred barristers Siward Atkins and Jonathan Hill to the BSB as well as referring solicitors from media firm Wiggin to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
In January this year, the BSB refused to refer the case. A decision by the SRA is pending. Henry sought to challenge the refusal but, in a judgment handed down on 13 September, his request was rejected.
In the judgment, Whipple said that she had considered issuing a civil restraint order against Henry who she said had ‘repeatedly issued claims or made applications … all of which have been dismissed as totally without merit’.
Whipple added that Henry had brought a number of cases arising out of the 2012 action.
‘Although he scored a modest early success in those cases, when the BSB agreed to reconsider its initial refusal to consider some of his complaints, that success has not been sustained, and he has since then been refused permission on a number of occasions,’ Whipple added.
The BSB was awarded costs of £3,194 though Whipple added that it was clear that the regulator had incurred costs ‘far in excess’ of that figure.