BELFAST – Michael Flatley is set to resume control of Lord of the Dance after the Chancery Court in Belfast lifted a temporary injunction that had barred him from any involvement in the production’s upcoming 30th anniversary tour.
Mr Justice Simpson delivered judgment on Thursday, January 29, 2026, following a civil case application in which “trenchant and quite personal” allegations were made on both sides, the court heard. The judge ordered the injunction lifted, citing the risk that continued restrictions could lead to “potentially unquantifiable” financial losses.
The ruling clears a governance and control question for a major international touring property weeks before the tour’s next operational phase, including a planned anniversary run in Dublin in February 2026.
Injunction lifted amid disputed facts and touring exposure
Mr Justice Simpson said there were “hotly disputed issues of fact” aired during the proceedings that could not be resolved in a civil setting. Those issues, he said, are matters for a trial in the future, under the principles that govern interim relief in the courts of Northern Ireland, which apply a modified version of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 and associated case law to balance convenience and potential harm when deciding whether to maintain an injunction.
The civil dispute centred on a temporary injunction granted earlier in January 2026 to Switzer Consulting Ltd that blocked Flatley’s involvement in the planned worldwide tour. Switzer sued the 67-year-old for alleged breach of contract.
According to the court, the temporary injunction was first filed by Switzer director Joe Gallagher on January 12, 2026. Gallagher, described during the hearing as “the face of Switzer,” applied to block Flatley from “cancelling, postponing, or in any way interfering” with Lord of the Dance, including forbidding him to “contact promoters or venues,” Mr Justice Simpson said.
Switzer’s barrister, Gary McHugh, told the court on Wednesday, January 28, 2026: “The Dublin show is good to go. But it’s the effect which Mr Flatley’s interference and conduct may have on shows down the line which essentially prompts this application.”
The court was told that 268 performances have been booked across Europe and North America in what was described as a “global venture.” In evidence, both sides emphasised that even short-term legal uncertainty over who was entitled to give instructions on behalf of the show could trigger venue jitters, insurance questions and potential renegotiation of promoter contracts.
Contract structure and royalties in focus
Two years ago, the parties struck a formal service agreement that allowed Switzer to run the shows, according to the court. Under that structure, Switzer took day-to-day responsibility for tour operations while Flatley, as creator and lead rights holder, retained a central intellectual property and branding role.
Financial arrangements were also referenced in the proceedings. The court heard Flatley has received nearly £430,000 in royalties in a 15-month period after the July 2024 agreement was signed, a flow of revenue that lawyers for both sides acknowledged depended on the show’s continuous ability to trade and fulfil bookings.
In touring, clarity over decision-making authority-who can approve changes, communicate with venues, and represent the production to promoters-can determine whether a multi-territory schedule holds together. A temporary injunction restricting contact and operational involvement can have immediate effects on contracting, venue relations, and delivery confidence across a long itinerary, particularly when shows are already booked and marketed. Industry lawyers say such interim orders, while common in commercial disputes, are increasingly scrutinised for their knock-on impact on workers, suppliers and audiences when large-scale live events are involved.
Flatley: “Yes, 100 per cent”
Speaking outside court after the judgment, Flatley described the outcome as a “fantastic victory.” Asked if he was back in control of the production, he said: “Yes, 100 per cent”.
“I won’t be in the car 10 seconds and I’ll be calling all my dancers, all of the cast and crew,” Mr Flatley told reporters.
“All their families have flown in and we’re going to lift the roof on Thursday.
“This will be the greatest version of this show that you will ever see.
“I’m absolutely delighted.”
He added that his immediate priority was to reassure performers, technical staff and venue partners that the tour would continue as scheduled.
Affidavits, allegations and next legal steps
In an affidavit giving an address in Monaco, Flatley rejected Switzer’s depiction of his character and financial reputation, the court heard.
Allegations were made about the retired performer’s “difficult financial history.” Flatley’s former financial adviser, Des Walshe, claimed his ex-client had been living the lifestyle of a Monaco millionaire “without the funds to do so” since 2019, the court heard.
The court was told Flatley had borrowed €75,000 to pay for his own birthday party. “In the bluntest terms, he was faking it on a multimillion euro scale,” Walshe wrote in a letter to Flatley’s solicitor in Dublin in December 2025, according to the proceedings.
Flatley’s barrister rejected claims that Flatley “was a poor manager of his own affairs and was a man with substantial debts.” The court also heard that “ad hominem attacks” had been made on his character, which the judge indicated would be a matter for determination, if at all, at a full trial rather than at the interim stage.
The court’s order lifts the temporary injunction blocking Flatley from participation, while the judge indicated the disputed factual issues are for a future trial; the tour remains booked, including 268 performances across Europe and North America, and the Dublin anniversary run is scheduled to proceed. For now, the decision restores operational control to the creator of one of the world’s best-known dance franchises, while leaving the underlying commercial dispute to work its way through the civil courts. As the industry watches, the case is also likely to feed into ongoing debate over how far interim court orders should reach into the management of high-value cultural assets, from touring shows to other intellectual property-driven ventures such as major music catalogues and sports entertainment, where governance questions increasingly intersect with contract law and commercial risk.