Barristers

Michael McLaren KC

Michael McLaren KC

Position

Michael McLaren KC is widely experienced in all areas of commercial litigation, regulation and professional discipline, with particular expertise in aviation, banking and finance, commercial dispute resolution and regulatory law.

Recent experience includes: Stoop v. Johnson [2024] EWHC 286 (Ch.) (damages-based agreements); Saudi Arabian Airlines v. International Airfinance Corp. [2024] EWHC 242 (Comm) (interim injunctions); Olympic Council of Asia v. Novans Jets [2023] EWHC 276 (Comm) (contempt), [2021] EWHC 1063 (Comm) (unjust enrichment and CPR24); LLC Eurochem v. Tecnimont [2022] EWHC 2444 (Comm) (anti-suit injunction); Gama Aviation v. MWMMWM [2021] EWHC 2229 (Comm) (non-setting aside default judgment), [2021] EWHC 3667 (Comm) (debarring order), [2022] 4WLUK 364 (summary judgment); Integral Petroleum v. GPB Bank [2000 Jacobs J] (non-setting aside anti-suit-injunction), [2022] EWHC 659 (Comm) (summary judgment); Odyssey Aviation v. GFG [2019] EWHC 1927 (Comm) (aircraft purchase); Bank Mellat v. HM Treasury ($4bn claim); Nesbit v. Acasta [2018] EWCA Civ 268 (construction of insurance policy); acting for litigation funder resisting security for costs in £700m claim; Williams v. SRA [2017] EWHC 1478 Admin (solicitor challenging strike off), Dubai Financial Group v National Private Air Transport Services [2016] EWCA Civ 71 (setting aside default judgment entered simultaneously with alternative service order); Tarom v Jet2.com [2014] EWCA Civ 87 (distinction between causation and assessment of damages); ACG Acquisition v Olympic [2013] EWCA Civ 369 (certificate of acceptance of aircraft).

Career

Called to the Bar 1981; Silk 2002.

Mentions

London Bar

Aviation and Travel

Leading silk1
Michael McLaren KC – Fountain Court Chambers 'An attentive KC.'
London Bar

Commercial litigation

Leading silk4
Michael McLaren KC –Fountain Court Chambers ‘Michael always thinks analytically with one eye on what will best persuade the judge. On his feet, he reacts to the judge's questioning and thinking to secure the best outcome for the client.'