Michael Paget

> People > Barristers > Michael Paget

Michael specialises in property (commercial and residential), housing and public law, planning, and other areas including Court of Protection matters. He is a proven litigator with a broad civil practice.

In 2018 he appeared in the Supreme Court twice.

He accepts instructions from solicitors firms, in-house legal departments and by direct access.

Solicitors’ comments about him include: “He is a sensitive and responsive advocate”. “He wants success for the client and knows how to get that result from the court.”

Expertise

Commercial and Regulatory
Michael has expertise in dealing with the cost implications of all litigation steps and funding issues. He accepts instructions under various forms of CFA. He encourages full use of Part 36 Offers.

He is also experienced in regulatory cases: HMOs under the Housing Act 2004; patients and nearest relative under the Mental Health Act 1983; how to police financial Deputies and landowners under TCPA 1990.

Recent caseload includes:
- SWAP miss-selling
- Commercial licence agreement variations – Supreme Court – Rock [2018] UKSC 24
- Setting-off Part 36 costs in an appeal against Part 36 costs in the main action.
- Obtaining and quantifying costs following discontinuance of county court displacement action.
- Post-Mitchell challenges
Selected earlier cases:

These cases can be accessed under Michael’s other core practice area entries.
- Contract Law in the Supreme Court: a sensible break with the common law?16 May 2018
- The clue is in the name: cost liabilities for liability orders02 May 2018
- Financial benefit is broader than profit when imposing a fine for failing to comply with an enforcement notice.01 Jan 2018
Property
Michael has extensive experience of 1954 Act lease renewal actions, dilapidation claims, forfeiture, lease extensions and Right to Buy decisions. He has expertise in Real Property matters including rectification of the Register and covenant removal, adverse possession, CPO, TOLATA and beneficial interest disputes including estate challenges. He was involved in the leading case on the effect of shared ownership.

Michael’s current caseload includes:
- MWB v Rock [2018] UKSC 24 – Commercial licence for serviced offices. Licensor orally renegotiates but then resiles from agreement. Effectiveness of NOM clauses.
- Rashid v Rashid [2017] UKUT 0332 (TCC) – does adverse possession arise when the paper title is obtained unlawfully? – Court of Appeal due to consider late 2018/ early 2019.
Selected earlier cases:
- Wodzicki v Wodzicki [2017] EWCA Civ 95 – beneficial interest in family property – constructive trust extends beyond partners – and interest is to be determined after an accounting exercise.
- Rashid v Rashid [2017] UKUT 0332 (TCC) – adverse possession does not arise despite obtaining paper title unlawfully
- Amin v Barking Central Management Company Ltd [2017] UKUT 232 (LC) – determination of extent of service charge clauses.
- Mortgage Express v Da Rocha [2014] EWCA Civ 454– mortgage reposession – mortgagors duty as bailee.
- McIntosh v McIntosh (deceased) [2014] EWCA Civ 557 – constructive trust claim against estate.
- Wright v Legister [2014] EWHC 2041 (Ch), [2014] WTLR 1675 – Inheritance Act 1975 claim against estate.
- Dunbar Assets PLC v Dorcas Holdings Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 864 – mortgage possession proceedings trial judge cannot grant order prior to evidence and submissions.
- Diep v Land Registry [2010] EWHC 3315 (Admin) – when to grant possessory title only on first registration.
- Richardson v Midland Heart Ltd (formerly Focus Homes Options) (2008) L & TR 31 – shared ownership claim for beneficial interest.
- Mortgage Repossession: Disposing of everything left behind.01 Jan 2018
- Simpson & Ors (t/a Harrow Solicitors and Advocates v Godson & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 133901 Jan 2018
Planning and Environment
Michael has expertise in the enforcement of planning law for developers and in the interplay between planning law and other public law obligations. He was involved in the Occupy litigation.

Michael’s recent caseload includes:
- POCA appeal after s.179 TCPA 1990 conviction.
Selected Earlier Cases:
- Kathleen Fox v Sabel [2016] EWHC 746 (Admin)– Statutory nuisance. Noise coming from neighbouring property. Client brought unsuccessful private prosecution. Judicial review of Magistrates’ refusal to state a case.
- Orchid Runnymede v Persons Unknown 2015 – protest occupation of Magna Carta site.
- R v Smith (2014) EWCA Crim 1508 – appeal against £250,000 fine under s.179 TCPA 1990 – reduced to £100,000.
- Mohamed v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Govt [2014] EWHC 4045 (Admin) – appealling enforcement notice for garden development.
- Smith v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council [2014] EWCA Civ 16 – 9 month committal sentence for breach of planning law upheld where contemptor no longer in control of the land so no longer any coercive element to sentence.
- Corporation of London v Samede and others [2012] EWCA Civ 160 (2012) 2 All ER 1039 – Representing St.Paul’s protestors seeking to vary extent of possession orders and injunctions.
- Diep v Land Registry [2010] EWHC 3315 (Admin) – when to grant possessory title only on first registration.
- Brentwood BC v Ball [2009] EWHC 2433 (QB) – no injunction granted where neighbours also in breach of planning.
- South Cambridgeshire DC v Gammell (2006) 1 WLR 658 – when to consider Article 8 rights when granting or continuing a s.187B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 injunction.
Housing
Michael is widely recognised as a leading housing practitioner with a Band 1 rating in Chambers and Partners. He deals with homelessness, unlawful evictions and disrepair. He is a Public Law expert. He appears in judicial review of interim accommodation decisions and allocation decisions. He deals with the interface between Housing and Community Care.

Current caseload includes:
- Distinguishing between a quantitative and qualitative assessment of a person’s circumstances for priority need determination.
- Upper Tribunal appeal relating to housing benefit overpayment of over £250,000
- Social Housing Fraud prosecution – Lewisham LBC v Scott – POCA proceedings ongoing
Selected earlier cases:
- Sanderson v Valuation Tribunal [2018] EWHC (Admin) – council tax liability where property HMO.
- Davis v Watford BC [2018] EWCA Civ 529 – correct court to seek interim relief following a non-completion s.204 appeal.
- Khan v Feltham Magistrates Court [2017] EWHC 3042 (Admin) – recoverability of litigation costs where liability orders challenged.
- Wood v Hull City Council [2017] EWCA Civ 364 – HMOs when to serve improvement notices on more than one property owner.
- S & J v Haringey LBC [2016] EWHC 2692 (Admin) – procedural fairness when undertaking Children Act 1989 assessment.
- A v Enfield LBC [2016] EWHC 567 (Admin) – was child in need when radicalised.
- Powell v Southwark LBC 2016 , CA – appeal refusal to grant interim temporary accommodation.
- Omar v Wandsworth LBC 2015 – first post-Hotak high court decision on ‘significantly’ more vulnerable.
- Loveridge v Lambeth LBC [2014] UKSC 65 – application of s.27/28 Housing Act 1988 statutory damages for unlawful eviction of secure tenant
- Multiple unlawful eviction claims against same private landlord. Damages of £27k and £50k. Freezing orders; orders for sale and rectification. Total liability £250k.
- Islington LBC v Doner [2012] EWCA Civ 1745 – Appeal dismissed by consent on provision of secure tenancy to failed successor who was vulnerable and not under-occupying normal accommodation.
- Byrne v Poplar HARCA [2012] EWCA Civ 832 [2012] HLR 33 – Relief from sanction guidance.
- Henley v Bloom [2010] EWCA Civ 202 – when a fresh disrepair claim following settled possession will and will not be an abuse of process.
- Birmingham City Council v Flatt [2008] EWCA Civ 739 [2009] HLR 5 – sentencing guidance in committal cases.
- Floyd v S (Equality and Human Rights Commission, intervening) [2008] EWCA Civ 201 – circumstances in which disability discrimination defence can be advanced.
Health and Social Care
Michael has been in litigation where a party’s complex needs will often straddle a number of legal areas. A vulnerable family may not be owed any housing duties but need consideration of children or vulnerable adults. A mental health patient may need to assert their legal rights. A local authority will need to decide if an applicant is a child.

His current caseload includes:
- MM v Secretary of State for Justice – due to be heard by Supreme Court 26 July 2018.
- Can a restricted patient (i.e a prisoner held in a mental hospital) agree to be discharged with conditions which would amount to a deprivation of liberty?
  Charles J held yes – M v WL Clinic [2015] UKUT 0644 (AAC); Court of Appeal held no – Secretary of State for Justice v MM [2017] EWCA Civ 194
- Jeff v Croydon LBC JR/8568/2015 -Age assessment judicial review. A talented football player – but evidence of trafficking through football – issue – how much weight to place on physical appearance. JR allowed in October 2017 permission to appeal to Court of Appeal sought.
Earlier selected cases
- F v Harrow LBC JR/557/2017 – Age assessment judicial review dismissed. A claimed was kidnapped in UK, raped and then put on flight to Canada. Was identified when trying to leave UK. A’s story was not about what happened in country of origin – but here in UK.
- S v Great Ormond Street Hospital 2015 – S was an anorexic who was detained in GOSH’s mental health wing. She was ‘Gillick’ competent and wanted to leave. GOSH obtained authorisation from Family Division – prior to that was S unlawful detained – was this a ‘Bournewood’ gap No.2? Case settled.
- K v Hospital Managers of the Kingswood Centre and others [2014] EWCA Civ 1332 considered how a discharge order from a nearest relative can be delivered to the hospital manager.
- TW v Enfield LBC [2014] EWCA Civ 362 in what circumstances can a AMHP dispense with consultation with the nearest relative prior to detention under the Mental Health Act 1983.
- Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice must change.01 Jan 2018
- Cornerstone Housing Day 2015 – Presentations01 Jan 2018
Court of Protection
- Overview
- Cases
Michael appears in both welfare and financial proceedings. Claims include acting for property and affairs Deputies in family dispute situations, removals of Deputies for financial abuse and best interest welfare claims.

Current caseload:
- Acting for Enfield LBC, new professional deputies and estates where Matrix Deputies Ltd have been removed as Deputy from over 50 cases following a number of breaches.
- Public Guardian v Matrix Deputies [2017] EWCOP 14
- COP gave guidance on the Deputy Security Bond call-in procedure.
- Enfield LBC v Matrix Deputies [2018] EWCOP 22
- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4878508/Judge-shames-finance-firm-amid-claims-missing-funds.html
Recent caseload:
- RP v P [2016] EWCOP 1 acting for interim deputy appointed because concern that family members were stealing from P (P very rich). COP appointed new deputy with expertise of criminal fraud
- P v S -Injunction in COP preventing Deputy granting commercial lease followed by removal proceedings.
- Challenging safeguarding concerns after no further action from police.
- Central Beds v S – best interest decision about S in care home with Mrs S objecting.
- Love in the time of COVID-1919 May 2020
- Further Cheshire West fall out: Supreme Court to decide about Mental Health Act patients26 Jul 2018
Public Law and Judicial Review
- Overview
- News
Michael is a public law expert. He has been involved in cases considering the interplay between public law obligations and private law remedies and which bodies are governed by public law.

Recent caseload includes:
- Legitimate expectation and what are good reasons for departing from it.
- Staying private law possession proceedings pending judicial review.
- Jeff v Croydon LBC JR/8568/2015 -Age assessment judicial review. A talented football player – but evidence of trafficking through football – issue – how much weight to place on physical appearance. JR allowed in October 2017 permission to appeal to Court of Appeal sought.
Selected earlier cases:
- Sanderson v Valuation Tribunal [2018] EWHC (Admin) – council tax liability where property HMO.
- Khan v Feltham Magistrates Court [2017] EWHC 3042 (Admin) – recoverability of litigation costs where liability orders challenged
- Kathleen Fox v Sabel [2016] EWHC 746 (Admin)– Statutory nuisance. Noise coming from neighbouring property. Client brought unsuccessful private prosecution. Judicial review of Magistrates’ refusal to state a case.
- S & J v Haringey LBC [2016] EWHC 2692 (Admin) – procedural fairness when undertaking Children Act 1989 assessment.
- A v Enfield LBC [2016] EWHC 567 (Admin) – was child in need when radicalised.
- McIntyre v Gentoo [2010] EWHC 5 (Admin) – public functions of a Registered Provider
- Cornerstone Barristers Special Edition Housing Newsletter: Housing and Planning Act 201601 Jan 2018
- Cornerstone Housing Day 2015 – Presentations01 Jan 2018

Michael Paget is a great barrister.
Chambers UK Bar (2024)

Really on the ball, he's able to diagnose the issues and find solutions.
Chambers UK Bar (2022)

He is exceptional to use and provides an excellent service.
Chambers UK Bar (2021)

A pleasant and effective opponent.
Chambers UK Bar (2020)

About Michael

Client Testimonials
- “He is a sensitive and responsive advocate”
- “He wants success for the client and knows how to get that result from the court.”
Directory Quotes
- Social Housing – “Michael is a strong advocate.” Chambers and Partners 2025
- Social Housing – “Michael Paget is a great barrister.” Chambers and Partners 2024
- Social Housing – “Involved and very helpful, he always makes those instructing him feel supported.” Chambers and Partners 2023
- Social Housing – “Really on the ball, he’s able to diagnose the issues and find solutions.” Chambers and Partners 2022
- Social Housing – “He is exceptional to use and provides an excellent service.” Chambers and Partners 2021
- “A pleasant and effective opponent.” Chambers and Partners 2020
- “Has a very good style in negotiation with other counsel, and is both a pleasant opponent to have and someone who’s good to work with.” Chambers and Partners 2019
- “He is diligent, concise and someone who provides well-researched, tailored and clear advice.” “A really impressive advocate who is very good with clients. He is very bright and he has got tenacity.” Chambers and Partners 2018
- “A fantastic barrister.” Chambers and Partners 2017
- “He is thorough and concise in his approach and work. He is approachable, thoughtful and personable to clients.” Chambers and Partners 2016
Associations
- Property Bar Association
- Social Housing Law Association
- Planning and Environment Bar Association
- Administrative Law Bar Association
Publications
- The Localism Act 2011: deposit, repairs and the rest 01 Apr 2012
- Residential Disrepair: Where does the structure stop?01 Dec 2011
Notable Cases
Events