In 1996 it was all so different.<\/p>\n
Michael Flatley<\/a> bounded on to stages around the world as the Lord of the Dance.<\/p>\n In his show, the Chicago-born dancer\u2019s character, the hero, battled the \u201cevil dark lord Don Dorcha\u201d from taking over \u201cPlanet Ireland\u201d.<\/p>\n High-kicking and careering his way through an elaborate spectacle of modern Irish dance and ancient Celtic mysticism, the star performer ended the show triumphantly surrounded by his entire dance troupe.<\/p>\n Thirty years later, Flatley finds himself injuncted from even talking to those who play the roles he once conceived and made famous \u2013 and locked out from a show that he insists he owns outright.<\/p>\n The high court in Belfast<\/a> has heard from his legal team that the current run of the show, celebrating its 30th anniversary tour, could \u201cfall apart\u201d because of a temporary injunction barring Flatley from participating in the production.<\/p>\n Flatley\u2019s lawyers have argued that his participation and artistic direction are essential to the show\u2019s success \u2013 and with two weeks to go before it takes to Dublin\u2019s 3Arena it is now in \u201cgrave danger\u201d of collapsing.<\/p>\n Earlier this month the company staging the production, Switzer Consulting, obtained the order.<\/p>\n It is suing Flatley for alleged breach of contract. Two years ago, both parties struck an agreement which allows Switzer to run Lord of the Dance.<\/p>\n Switzer has lodged affidavits with the court making allegations about Flatley\u2019s financial reputation. The company has sought to have him blocked from playing a role in the Lord of the Dance\u2019s production.<\/p>\n There is plenty at stake for both parties.<\/p>\n The show, which opens in Dublin on February 5th with tickets starting at \u20ac69.55 a head, has booked hundreds of nights in Britain this summer along with a significant European run. The company says it has lined up shows in up to 10 countries and currently has 266 dates scheduled for this year alone.<\/p>\n In a grounding affidavit, first reported by the Irish Daily Mail, Switzer has claimed that Flatley attempted to \u201chijack\u201d the tour and put the show\u2019s staff under \u201crelentless pressure\u201d over the Christmas period.<\/p>\n The affidavit further alleges that his lenders are \u201ccontrolling his affairs\u201d and Flatley is facing \u201cfinancial difficulties\u201d.<\/p>\n The performer is being backed financially by construction magnates Maurice Regan and Luke Comer. A loan of about \u20ac7 million enabled him to retain his Castlehyde mansion in Co Cork<\/a> where he was last year faced with a receivership battle.<\/p>\n Switzer claims that the July 2024 deal meant it would run the show itself and that Flatley\u2019s involvement would be restricted to only receiving royalties.<\/p>\n [\u00a0Firm has brought action \u2018against its master\u2019, Michael Flatley, star\u2019s lawyers claimOpens in new window<\/a>\u00a0]<\/p>\n In papers lodged with the court, Joe Gallagher of Switzer Consulting recounts his business dealings with Flatley since that agreement was struck.<\/p>\n His depiction of Flatley is far from flattering.<\/p>\n \u201cHistorically speaking, instead of reinvesting, the defendant [Flatley] consistently stripped the business of monies to support his personal lifestyle,\u201d Gallagher said in his sworn statement.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is only since the plaintiff [Switzer] assumed control of commercial matters that there has been a structured approach to the operation and development of the business.<\/p>\n \u201cStaff are paid up to date, suppliers are fully paid, taxes are paid on time and in full. In an overall context, the business is being run properly.\u201d<\/p>\n In particular, he alleges that Flatley registered an Irish company called \u2018Feet of Flames\u2019 and that he believes the former dancer intends to use the company as a \u201cvehicle to try and operate the subject shows\u201d, despite the agreement in place.<\/p>\n Gallagher also claims that, during the Christmas period, Flatley contacted the promoter Peter Aiken<\/a> and asked him to divert deposit funds from Switzer to Flatley directly. At the same time, Gallagher alleges, Flatley has asked him to redraft contracts. This is denied by the former dancer.<\/p>\n It is alleged as well that Flatley had contacted several promoters overseas, seeking that deposits be sent to him, has asked the cast and crew to block the contact details of Switzer and their directors and told suppliers to the show that \u201cwe are taking over the shows\u201d.<\/p>\n He says it is his view that Flatley \u201cwill [try] to hijack all existing contracts and instead of running the business correctly, will strip the business of cash to support his debts and lifestyle\u201d.<\/p>\n Four days after the high court in Belfast granted Switzer an injunction against Flatley, his lawyers asked why it had been decided in his absence.<\/p>\n Flatley\u2019s barrister John Coyle said that unless Flatley could participate in the show, losses would inevitably be incurred because his \u201cartistic direction\u201d was a vital part.<\/p>\n Coyle also raised concerns about Switzer\u2019s financial position. As part of the wider case, undertakings have been given to pay any consequent damages if the action is unsuccessful.<\/p>\n He claims there may be issues over the solvency of the company.<\/p>\n \u201cThe economic havoc that would be visited upon the defendant is substantial, without any recompense,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n Switzer claims that if Flatley were to operate the shows, it would result in a breach of the 2024 agreement, the loss of musical rights and the subsequent cancellation of the performances.<\/p>\n Flatley\u2019s own personal financial position is cited in several places \u2013 with Gallagher alleging that during a meeting in November, Flatley said he was \u201cbroke\u201d. He says that the dancer\u2019s history of not paying bills makes him unfit to run the shows.<\/p>\n \u201cThe defendant has two High Court<\/a> cases before the Commercial Court in the Republic of Ireland and has already one adverse security for costs order against him, which he is currently appealing.\u201d<\/p>\n A security for costs order requires a litigant to put up funds in advance of a case\u2019s conclusion to cover the other side\u2019s legal costs should that side win, protecting them from being out of pocket as a result of the case.<\/p>\n