Flatley’s Lord of the Dance Sued Weeks Before Australian Shows

Lord Of The Dance in Legal Limbo Ahead of European Shows

Michael Flatley’s iconic production, Lord Of The Dance, is once again entangled in a legal quagmire, with the company that previously managed the tour, Switzer, seeking to be released from a non-interference agreement. This dramatic turn of events comes less than two weeks before a highly anticipated performance in Croatia, adding a layer of uncertainty to the long-running show.

The 30-year-old touring spectacle has been no stranger to the courtroom this year. A contentious legal battle earlier in 2023 concluded with an agreement that permitted the Riverdance luminary, Michael Flatley, to proceed with the Dublin premiere of the show just last month. However, this fragile peace appears to have been shattered.

Switzer Seeks Release from Undertaking

Switzer has now approached the Belfast High Court, arguing that the circumstances have evolved significantly since the previous agreement was struck. Gary McHugh, the barrister representing Switzer, informed the court of a “quickly moving series of events” that necessitates their current application.

“What we seek on behalf of Switzer is to have the undertaking that was agreed previously discharged,” McHugh stated. He emphasised the compelling need for this release, citing the imminent commencement of a series of performances as part of the tour’s established schedule.

The tour’s immediate future is on shaky ground, with the first scheduled performance slated for Zagreb, Croatia, on March 25th. This is to be followed by a string of shows across Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Germany.

Mr. McHugh acknowledged that Michael Flatley’s legal team is expected to oppose Switzer’s application. He expressed hope for the matter to be heard in full in April, but the looming performance dates are a source of considerable anxiety.

Allegations of Confusion and Undermined Contracts

“The anxiety we have is that the shows are starting [soon],” Mr. McHugh told the court. He detailed his instructions, which suggest a “significant amount of confusion out there in relation to who shall be running these shows.”

Switzer contends that contractual obligations are being jeopardised by representations made by the defendant. “We say we have contracts that should be performed and executed that are being undermined by representations being made by the defendant in this case,” McHugh explained. The core concern for Switzer is to avert a situation where “a series of very potentially lucrative shows find themselves thwarted in the coming weeks and months.”

Beyond seeking to withdraw from the undertaking, Switzer also intends to amend its statement of claim to include further allegations.

Flatley’s Legal Team Highlights Ownership Rights

Representing Michael Flatley, David Dunlop presented what he termed “indisputable facts” to the court. A key point raised was a previous judgment from Judge Simpson, which unequivocally established Michael Flatley as the rightful holder of the proprietary rights and intellectual property associated with the Lord Of The Dance show. Mr. Dunlop stressed that Switzer had not appealed this ruling.

Furthermore, Mr. Dunlop noted a lack of further engagement from Bruce MacInnes, identified as a director of Switzer, since the company’s earlier injunction against Mr. Flatley was overturned. This injunction had aimed to prevent Mr. Flatley from participating in the tour.

Disputed Intellectual Property Claims

An affidavit submitted on February 4th by Mr. MacInnes controversially claimed that Michael Flatley did not, in fact, own the intellectual property of the show. Mr. MacInnes asserted that Mr. Flatley had transferred these rights to Switzer in exchange for a €2 million loan from himself.

Mr. Dunlop countered this assertion, explaining that Mr. Flatley retained the right to redeem his property upon repayment of the purported loan. However, he highlighted that Mr. MacInnes had “refused to engage” and had not provided any documentation to substantiate his claims, describing the situation as “completely unacceptable.”

While Mr. Dunlop’s team does not perceive Switzer’s application as urgent, they are keen to receive a comprehensive statement of claim from Switzer.

The Full Scope of Switzer’s Case

The broader case brought by Switzer, which is yet to be fully heard, seeks damages from Michael Flatley. The allegations include:

• Breach of contract
• Negligence
• Misrepresentation
• Interference with Switzer’s economic interests

Conversely, Mr. Flatley’s defence argues that Switzer has failed to fulfil its contractual obligations. He asserts that their “recent actions have cut across the effective and successful marketing and production” of the tour.

A History of Legal Confrontations

This legal saga has played out publicly since January, when Switzer initially sought an injunction to prevent Mr. Flatley from interfering with the tour. At that time, Switzer accused Mr. Flatley of attempting to “hijack” the production to settle his personal debts and fund his lifestyle.

Mr. Flatley successfully challenged this injunction and subsequently moved to terminate Switzer’s involvement. In response, Switzer declared the Dublin show cancelled, forcing Mr. Flatley and his legal team to return to the High Court to secure an injunction halting the cancellation.

While Switzer was prepared to present further arguments regarding the ownership of the show’s rights, both parties eventually agreed to drop the second injunction. This paved the way for an agreement that allowed the February performances to proceed. Switzer’s latest attempt to extricate itself from this agreement has been granted a provisional hearing date for the following month.