Deputy Senior Clerk
Practice Manager
Assistant Practice Manager
Michael Uberoi KC is a leading commercial / chancery and regulatory barrister. He has particular expertise in contentious trust law (in relation to both pension schemes and other commercial trusts), commercial disputes involving the financial services sector, and financial services regulation (Michael is also ranked in the directories as a leading barrister in fintech regulation). In 2025, Michael won the award for Legal 500’s ‘Financial Services and Insurance Junior of the Year’.
Allied to the above, his practice encompasses breach of director’s duties claims and shareholder disputes, professional negligence actions, and civil fraud.
The legal directories describe him as “a first-rate barrister who blends legal skills with a great client-focused approach”, who is “technically brilliant but also a pleasure to work with.” An “exceptional advocate” who is “great on his feet”, and “very dynamic and bright”.
Michael’s practice encompasses offshore work, including instructions from the Dubai International Financial Centre, Jersey, and ongoing disputes involving the regulation of Dubai financial services providers.
Michael has appeared in multiple leading pension cases in recent years. His work often involves advising trustees as to the proper exercise of their powers, the true construction of applicable deeds, or the best approach to adopt when potential mistakes are uncovered in a scheme’s history. He is described in the 2025 directories for Pensions as “approachable and commercial, providing really high-quality legal advice but in a practical way”, Some examples of recent cases include:
• Pelgrave v The Pensions Regulator [2025] UKUT 00257 (TCC) – important Upper Tribunal decision involving the true scope of the Regulator’s statutory power to impose Contribution Notices under s.38 Pensions Act 2004 (“party test”) the meaning of material detriment to a scheme, and the “series” test. Michael also acted in the proceedings below, before the Determinations Panel.
• St Modwen Property plc v Smith [2024] – acting for the company and trustee in successful rectification proceedings.
• Viavi Solutions UK Limited v Viavi Pension Trustee UK Limited [2022] EWHC 2565 (Ch) Michael acted for the pension trustee in these rectification proceedings arising out of faulty indexation rules.
• Fetherston v Dalriada Trustees Ltd (judgment awaited). A five day High Court trial involving contested historic pension increases (and a change of accrual rate), dating back to alleged decisions in the mid 1970’s. The Scheme is in the PPF assessment period and the case involves issues arising from the PPF’s statutory Admissible Rules, and associated legislation, as well as exercise of powers, extrinsic contract, and estoppel.
• Univar v Smith & Ors [2020] EWHC 1596 (Ch) (involving rectification, and extrinsic / South West Trains contracts – the case is now the leading authority on pension scheme rectification) – as stated in the case of Iggesund [2021], the principles of pension scheme rectification were “settled” by Univar, which case it is “unnecessary to look beyond.”
• Safeway Ltd v Newton (Cases 1 and 2 in the Court of Appeal, and in the CJEU- [2020] EWCA Civ 869; [2017] EWCA Civ 1482) Safeway was the highest value equalisation claim ever to come before the courts, and is one of the most high profile claims involving discrimination in pension schemes in recent years, as well as (Briggs LJ, in the Court of Appeal) representing one of the leading authorities on the correct approach to the construction of pension scheme documentation. Michael acted (led) for the Representative Beneficiary throughout and was successful at first instance, in the Court of Appeal, and before the CJEU.
• Currently acting for the defendant actuaries in professional negligence proceedings involving historic drafting errors and alleged omissions in relation to the provision of “section 37” actuarial confirmations.
• Currently acting for the claimant Company and Trustee in professional negligence proceedings against a magic circle law firm for faulty drafting.
• PO-22369, re the Allen, Allen & Ms E SSAS, publication date December 2022 Acting for the successful Complainant in a fully contested oral hearing before the Pensions Ombudsman, in which findings of breach of trust were made against the Respondent professional trustee and member trustees, as a result of their failure to manage conflicts of interest, with the consequence that the scheme’s exoneration clauses could not be relied upon by the Respondents in relation to significant unauthorised payment tax charges.
• Sheffield v Kier Group plc [2019] EWHC 986 (Ch) A High Court appeal involving the extent of the Pensions Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, and legitimate expectations / A1P1 rights.
• Advising the Trustees in relation to company proposals to access a multi-million pound surplus in the context of an imminent scheme buy-out.
• Acting for individual trustees and former directors in Part 7 restitutionary proceedings involving the Bic UK Pension Scheme, which claim alleged conflicts of interest and breach of company articles in the awarding of future benefit entitlements.
• Representing the Target trustees before the Determinations Panel of TPR, at which Prohibition Orders were sought in the aftermath of a pensions liberation scandal.
• Instructed by the Pensions Regulator in proceedings before the Upper Tribunal in relation to high value breaches of the employer related investments legislation, by a senior trustee.
• Michael frequently advises on matters before the Pensions Ombudsman, and on appeals from determinations of the Ombudsman (including in cross-over appeals from determinations of the Financial Ombudsman Service, in relation to pension misselling) – see the Allen, Allen and Ms E SSAS scheme case above (PO-22369), and Sheffield v Kier Group Plc [2019] EWHC 986 (Ch) (also above).
Michael has noteworthy experience and expertise in disputes around personal pension schemes and the financial regulation of those schemes, in which cases he is uniquely well placed to act as a result of his position as a leading silk in both pensions and financial services regulation. Some examples of recent or ongoing cases include:
• Acting for a major SIPP operator in High Court proceedings in defence of proceedings brought alleging breach of duty in respect of separately advised international investments (ongoing 2026);
• Successfully resisting a High Court injunction application brought by a member to attempt to compel the transfer of his fund by a SIPP trustee (in the context of a parallel “Blight v Brewster” order) – 2026
• Acting for the defendant wealth management entity in High Court proceedings involving alleged failures to transfer out final salary entitlements in breach of COBS (settled at the door of court prior to a 5 day trial in the Chancery Division).
• Acting for a major wealth management entity in linked complaints before the Financial Ombudsman Service (c.39 complaints), arising from the alleged misselling of SIPP investments.
• Advising the SIPP trustee in respect of a Public Trustee v Cooper application in the face of competing claims on the fund.
Michael has long been ranked in both Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 for his financial services work (Band 1 Legal 500), and has many years’ experience in this area (having, when more junior, been seconded to the Financial Conduct Authority for six months).
In 2025 he was awarded Legal 500’s “Financial Services and Insurance Junior of the Year” accolade.
He has particular expertise in financial services / pensions cases and in claims brought against SIPP operators – Michael is currently acting for the defendants in several such claims, both in the High Court, and in relation to complaints to the FOS. He also regularly acts in insurance regulation, in particular in relation to the Lloyd’s of London market.
Michael’s experience spans the full breadth of contentious regulatory matters, including claims against wealth management entities (for breach of COBS and broader claims), claims and complaints involving collective investment schemes and other financial products (including crypto-assets), and enforcement actions (Michael recently acted in a leading case on limitation and the penalty regime – Reynolds v FCA, and in the leading enforcement action of recent years in the Lloyd’s of London market – Lloyd’s of London v Richard Tomlin (non-financial misconduct).
Of his Financial Services work, the current directories state that he “provides strong, consistent advice” and that he is “a very talented barrister who has a keen eye for detail.”
Much of Michael’s work in this field is confidential, however some recent or ongoing instructions include:
• Richard Tomlin v The Council of Lloyd’s of London – Acting for the Defendant Richard Tomlin (a leading underwriter) in groundbreaking enforcement proceedings brought by Lloyd’s of London for ‘non-financial misconduct’, in which the regulator argued for a lifetime ban for alleged various species of non-financial misconduct within the Lloyd’s marketplace. Key arguments included the extent of Lloyd’s statutory powers. Michael’s client was acquitted of (all) 37 charges, after proceedings before the Lloyd’s of London Appeal Tribunal.
• Reynolds v Financial Conduct Authority – acting for the applicant financial adviser in enforcement proceedings before the Upper Tribunal in relation to limitation arguments under FSMA, Prohibition Orders, dishonesty / lack of integrity, and the proper approach to penalties under DEPP. The misconduct arose in the context of the closure of the British Steel pension scheme and misselling of transferred out pensions.
• Re: A Chinese Entity: advising a leading Chinese crypto-asset provider in relation to crypto-assets and tokens and the FCA’s regulatory perimeter.
• Acting for a major SIPP operator in defence of proceedings brought alleging breach of duty in respect of separately advised international investments (ongoing 2026);
• Successfully resisting a High Court injunction application brought by a member to attempt to compel the transfer of his fund (in the context of parallel “Blight v Brewster” order) – 2026
• Acting for the defendant wealth management entity in High Court proceedings involving alleged failures to transfer out final salary entitlements in breach of COBS (settled at the door of court prior to a 5 day trial in the Chancery Division).
• Currently acting for a multi-national energy solutions entity in relation to the alleged misselling of complex derivative products and associated breaches of FCA and DIFC regulations.
• PO-22369, re the Allen, Allen & Ms E SSAS, publication date December 2022 – Acting for the successful claimants in proceedings before the Ombudsman (including an oral hearing) in relation to a complaint against a SIPP operator and trustees, in relation to a disputed nomination post death of the member. Findings of breach of trust were made against the SIPP trustee, and the exoneration clause was found to not apply.
• Acting for the defendant wealth management entity in High Court proceedings in relation to alleged misselling of international bond investments.
• Acting for an investment fund manager in a dispute involving alleged breaches of several of the SMR Conduct Rules and the fit and proper person test.
• Acting for a major wealth management entity in linked complaints before the Financial Ombudsman Service (c.39 complaints), arising from alleged misselling of SIPP investments.
• Advising the CEO of a major wealth management firm with regard to his Senior Management Function responsibilities in the context of CASS breaches by the firm, and FCA whistleblowing.
• Advising a large trading entity in relation to financial promotions, and whether there was a breach of s.21 FSMA in the context of the (Financial Promotions) Order 2005.
• Advising the board of a major P2P lending entity with regard to the perimeter and associated permissions, and upon whether underlying loan agreements were consequently unenforceable under s. 28 FSMA.
• Advising a major mortgage credit business on perimeter questions
Michael is experienced in company, director and shareholder disputes arising from the implosion of business relationships. He regularly acts in matters involving allegations of misconduct against directors and associated allegations of breach of fiduciary duty. His recent experience includes:
• Ceredigion Recycling & Furniture Team v (1) Pope (2) Cann & Ors [2022] EWHC 1969 (Ch) – whether second defendant director acted in breach of fiduciary duties when transferring company property to her SIPP, and the appropriate measure of damages as a result.
• Re: Bic UK: Acting for the defendant directors in Part 7 restitutionary proceedings alleging breach of director’s duties and conflicts of interest in the employer’s funding of the company pension scheme.
• Barclays Bank v Dylan, Antrobus, Mason [2024]EWHC 1994 (Ch) – issues included a dispute between shareholders as to whether shares were validly transferred pursuant to a shareholder agreement, whether share title was appropriately perfected in the company register, and the status of anonymous filings made at Companies House.
• Re: A Scheme – application to restore a company to the Register in the context of associated professional negligence proceedings.
• Re: Ann Pelgrave [2025] Pens. L.R 14 – issues included whether the Respondent co-director acted in breach of her director’s duties in relation to the buy-back of her shareholding.
Michael also has experience of applications to restore companies to the Register, having acted in several such applications.
Much of Michael’s work in this area is confidential, but examples of recent / ongoing cases include:
• Currently acting for the defendant actuaries in professional negligence proceedings involving historic drafting errors and faulty advice in relation to the provision of “section 37” actuarial confirmations.
• Currently acting for the claimant trustee in negligence proceedings against solicitors alleging incorrect advice and drafting errors arising from failing to spot / warn that an adjacent rule was impacted by a faulty principal rule.
• Acting for a Claimant company in professional negligence proceedings against a magic circle law firm for failing to properly ensure that the scheme’s indexation and revaluation rules converted from RPI to CPI (and related loss of a chance arguments).
• Acting for the Defendant (actuaries and administrators) in professional negligence proceedings alleging a failure to warn about deficiently drafted equalisation rules (and whether the true loss was caused by the later actions of the trustees, thereby breaking the chain).
• Acting in professional negligence proceedings defending the actuaries and administrators of a large pension scheme in defence of historic allegations of faulty drafting regarding key scheme benefits, and associated loss of a chance arguments.
• Defending a well-known law firm in relation to allegedly negligent advice.
• Advising the Claimant trustees in respect of a claim against their former investment advisers alleging unsuitability and deficient advice in relation to so-called “liability driven investing” and the sale of investments in the aftermath of the “mini-budget” of 2022.
Michael regularly acts in commercial disputes and frequently appears in the Business and Property Courts. He has significant experience of early matters such as questions of jurisdiction and interim injunctions, and also has a wealth of experience in respect of contempt of court applications (including contempt of court trials themselves).
Michael also has particular expertise in correcting mistakes in commercial instruments, having appeared in various leading cases on rectification and mistake more generally.
Some examples of recent cases include:
• Barclays Bank v Dylan, Antrobus, Mason [2024] EWHC 1994 (Ch) – acting for the Third Defendant in an eleven day contempt of court trial arising from alleged breaches of freezing orders and the associated transfer of various shareholdings offshore to a BVI entity, and in the appeal of the order to the Court of Appeal.
• Re: TR – Acting for the defendant building contractor (and its director) in High Court proceedings alleging deceit, unjust enrichment, breach of contract and an equitable proprietary claim for overpaid monies, arising out of several years of invoiced sub-contractor work for a major building project in East London. Settled.
• Univar v Smith & Ors [2020] EWHC 1596 (Ch) (rectification, ten day High Court trial) – as stated in the case of Iggesund [2021], the principles of pension scheme rectification were “settled” by Univar, which case it is “unnecessary to look beyond.”
• Acting for the defendant financial advisory firm and a leading wealth management entity in High Court proceedings relating to allegations of deceit and breach of Cobs in respect of valuable pension benefit transfers (settled).
• Acting for a leading supply chain entity in a multi-million pound dispute involving a national logistics contract and the terms for daily product delivery to hundreds of national outlets (Commercial List, Michael successfully resisted injunctive proceedings at the outset of the dispute).
• Ceredigion Recycling & Furniture Team v (1) Pope (2) Cann & Ors [2022] EWHC 1969 (Ch) – appearing for the second defendant director during the recovery proceedings arising from a trial alleging disputed use of pension scheme investments.
• Acting for the Defendant wealth management firm and associated financial adviser in defending High Court litigation alleging deceit, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty, arising out of the alleged misselling of an international bond product.
• Obtaining a freezing injunction (in the sum of approximately £3 million) and acting in the underlying breach of loan agreement claim, on behalf of an Indian marketing firm. The case settled shortly after the freezing injunction was obtained.
• Acting for a Dubai based trading entity in its claim for breach of contract and misrepresentation over the contractual terms applicable to a foreign exchange trading account, and a related decision to close out positions resulting in a multi-million pound loss for the Claimant.
• Acting for a major hotel food supplier in defending a high value claim involving the Commercial Agency Regulations and their disputed applicability to various commercial relationships with employees, fraudulent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.
• A claim for a holiday letting company against a major bank for breach of contract, misrepresentation, and failure to exercise a contractual lending discretion in a loan agreement in good faith (settled).
• Successfully resisted a High Court claim for a mandatory injunction in respect of disputed trust assets, applying for an order compelling their transfer [2026];
• Barclays Bank v Dylan, Antrobus, Mason [2024] EWHC 1994 (Ch) – acting for the Third Defendant in an eleven-day contempt of court trial in the Chancery Division arising from alleged conspiracy, breaches of freezing orders, and the associated transfer of various shareholdings offshore to a British Virgin Islands entity (and onward tracing to a Delaware entity).
• Re: TR – Acting for the defendant building contractor (and its director) in High Court proceedings alleging deceit, unjust enrichment, breach of contract and an equitable proprietary claim for overpaid monies, arising out of several years of invoiced sub-contractor work for a major building project in East London. Settled
• Re: a wealth management entity – currently acting for a professional trustee seeking to recover trust fund overpayments made to an offshore beneficiary in error. Unjust enrichment and jurisdictional questions arising out of conflicting probate laws.
• Currently acting in various contentious claims involving third party debt order applications attaching to valuable pension scheme benefits (and the Blight v Brewster line of case law) – see Zubarev v Singh [2025] EWHC 2242 Ch.
• Re: MD – currently acting for a defendant entrepreneur in connection with contempt of court proceedings arising out of an alleged large scale insurance fraud.
• Acting for the defendant financial advisory firm and a leading wealth management entity in High Court proceedings in relation to allegations of deceit in respect of valuable pension benefit transfers (settled).
• Acting for the Defendant wealth management firm and associated financial adviser in defending High Court litigation alleging deceit, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty, arising out of the alleged misselling of an international bond product.
• Obtaining a freezing injunction (in the sum of approximately £3 million) and acting in the underlying breach of loan agreement claim, on behalf of an Indian marketing firm. The case settled shortly after the freezing injunction was obtained.
Michael has long experience advising trustees in relation to their decision-making powers and how to interpret and exercise them, and in contentious trust disputes centring upon the recovery of trust assets (both onshore and offshore), claims involving allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, alleged flaws in trustee decision-making, and claims for damages and other associated relief. His experience includes Beddoe applications, Public Trustee v Cooper applications for the court’s approval, claims alleging breach of trust and dishonesty, and associated injunctive relief.
Recent experience includes:
• Successfully resisting an injunction application brought by a beneficiary attempting for compel the trustee to transfer trust assets to him [2026];
• Advising upon a Public Trustee v Cooper application to provide trustee guidance in the context of competing claims for trust assets [2026];
• Defending the Trustee of a SIPP in High Court proceedings for breach of fiduciary duty arising from the investment strategy applied to the fund;
• Fetherston & Ors v Dalriada Trustees Ltd (judgment awaited) – a five day High Court trial (Northern Irish Chancery Division), in which Michael acted for the defendant Trustee. Issues included the proper construction of trust powers, the equitable maxim of “all things were done that were meant to be done”, and estoppel.
• Acting for the beneficiary in a dispute with the trustees (professional and lay) over the nomination made by her brother prior to his death. Findings of breach of trust, and the disapplication of the exoneration clause were made by the Pensions Ombudsman (to include against the professional trustee), after an oral hearing: PO-22369, re the Allen, Allen & Ms E SSAS, publication date December 2022.
• Defending the former trustees of a major UK pension scheme in Part 7 proceedings brought after their tenure alleging improper decision-making, conflict of interest, and breach of company articles in their actions as trustees (and company directors) when awarding future benefits.
• Re: a US citizen – advising the professional trustee in connection with a mistaken payment made from the wrong trust fund, to an offshore beneficiary, in error. Unjust enrichment and jurisdictional questions arising out of conflicting probate laws.
• Re: a Jersey Scheme: advising the Trustees of a Jersey based trust as to their investment powers, the applicable offshore regulatory framework, and the true construction of the applicable Trust Deed.
• Re: ESG – advising the Trustees of a pension scheme in connection with their investment duties and associated ESG considerations.
• DIFC Pensionable entitlement – instructed by the DIFC as part of a team to draft the mandatory minimum pensionable entitlement for relevant employees, into DIFC law, via a trust law structure.
Michael’s practice encompasses offshore work, including instructions from the Dubai International Financial Centre, Jersey, and ongoing disputes involving the regulation of Dubai financial services providers. Recent instructions include:
• Currently acting for a leading professional trustee in connection with a mistaken payment made from the wrong trust fund, to an offshore beneficiary, in error. Unjust enrichment and jurisdictional questions arising out of conflicting probate laws.
• Re: a Jersey Scheme – advising the Trustees of a Jersey based trust as to their investment powers, the true construction of the governing deed, and the applicable offshore regulatory framework.
• Acting for a multi-national energy solutions entity in relation to the alleged misselling of complex derivatives by a Dubai based trading entity, and associated DIFC regulations.
• Acting for a Dubai based trading entity in its claim for breach of contract and misrepresentation over the contractual terms applicable to a foreign exchange trading account, and a related disputed decision to close out positions, resulting in loss (settled).
• Advising the Dubai International Financial Centre in relation to the introduction of new overriding pension regulations, applicable to entities operating in Dubai, and the drafting of the new law.
• Barclays Bank v Dylan, Antrobus, Mason [2024] EWHC 1994 (Ch) – acting for the Third Defendant in an eleven-day contempt trial in the Chancery Division arising from the transfer of various shareholdings offshore to a British Virgin Islands entity (and onward tracing to a Delaware entity), and associated conspiracy allegations and breaches of freezing orders.
Financial Services
Chambers & Partners
‘He is a good advocate and a great technical lawyer. Michael is a tough opponent and hugely respected.’ (2026)
‘Michael really knows his stuff when it comes to pensions and financial services matters.’; ‘He provides strong, consistent advice.’; ‘Michael is a pleasure to work with.’ (2025)
Legal 500
‘A very personable and robust junior.’ (2026)
‘Michael is very willing to get stuck into the matter right away and offers a pragmatic, commercial steer backed up by careful analysis of his lay client’s circumstances.’ (2023)
‘Michael is very personable, and his approach to work is excellent; thorough, comprehensive, practical, and timely.’ (2022)
‘Michael is personable, technically outstanding, and very hard working and responsive.’ (2021)
‘A very talented barrister who has a keen eye for detail.’ (2020)
Pensions
Chambers & Partners
‘Michael really knows his stuff when it comes to pensions and is a pleasure to work with.’ (2026)
‘Michael Uberoi is a good team player.’ (2026)
‘Michael is approachable and commercial, providing really high-quality legal advice but in a practical way that has helped us on a number of occasions navigate very difficult issues.’; ‘A pleasure to work with, Michael provided strong, consistent advice in a timely manner and on budget.’; ‘Michael has a very clear level of expertise and sophistication in both written and oral tasks.’ (2025)
‘Michael is technically brilliant but also a pleasure to work with, and clients love him.’; ‘Clients love his calm and easygoing manner. The perfect person for tricky issues that are likely to have dire consequences.’; ‘Michael is a first-rate barrister who blends legal skills with a great client-focused approach.'(2024)
‘Michael knows the subject area inside out. His advice is clear, commercially focused and delivered in a client-friendly manner. Also, he is always great to use as a sounding board.’ (2023)
‘He’s extremely competent and pragmatic. Michael is generous with his time and has a good manner with clients.’ (2023)
‘Michael is a superstar – he’s got incredible judgement and is very knowledgeable about some of the more difficult areas of pensions.’ (2023)
‘He has very thorough and well-founded knowledge, and he is very practical and very client-friendly.’ (2021)
‘He is very commercially minded and knows the pensions practice area.’ (2021)
‘He is able to get to grips with technical issues and provide clear advice quickly.’ (2021)
Legal 500
‘Michael is brilliant at getting on with other and has empathy and understanding of the position of other parties.’ (2026)
‘An excellent all rounder.’ (2025)
‘Hard-working and bright, gaining an excellent reputation.’ (2024)
‘He is extremely personable and explains complex concepts very simply to clients. Great bedside manner. His arguments are precise and well considered, delivered in an accessible manner.’ (2023)
‘Michael is an absolute delight to work with. He is not only technically outstanding, he is also incredibly hardworking and is brilliant with clients.’ (2022)
‘Excellent senior junior who invests time to understand and address client concerns.’ (2021)
‘His written and oral advocacy is clear and persuasive and he is a pleasure to work with.’ (2020)
Professional Discipline
Chambers & Partners
‘Michael Uberoi is a fantastically able counsel with deep knowledge of his subject matter and great commercial awareness.’ (2026)
‘Michael Uberoi is very smart, robust, and great with clients and solicitors alike.’ (2026)
‘A really strong senior junior. He’s very calm and measured, gets to grips with complicated legal issues quickly, and is great on his feet.’; ‘Very well prepared and an extremely effective advocate.’ (2024)
‘Michael understands the needs of an individual client and is empathetic while providing sensible, robust legal advice in a lay-friendly manner.’; ‘Excels at representing financial professionals in proceedings before regulators, including the FRC and Pensions Regulator’ (2025)
‘Michael has been a pleasure to deal with; he is responsive and his work product is very good.’ (2023)
Chambers & Partners
‘Very dynamic and bright’ (2021)
‘Approachable and easy to work with.” “An excellent senior junior.’ (2019)
‘Very likeable and very good on his feet.’ (2018)
‘He puts clients at ease, and is well prepared and easy to get on with.’ (2018)
‘Exceptionally good. Very, very hard-working, incredibly incise, lots of panache and confidence. A really good advocate.’ (2017)
‘Highly thought of junior who represents professionals before the FCA Enforcement Division. Analytical, calmly persuasive and thorough; when you send him papers, you know he’ll have read, analysed and carefully prepared every aspect of the case.’ (2017)
‘Michael is a very impressive junior barrister who is knowledgeable and accomplished beyond his years. He is sensible, realistic and pragmatic in his advice, whilst his care in presenting a case is notable.’ (2017)
‘He adopts a firm but calm approach and clearly sets out the reality of a case to clients. He is extremely well prepared for all his cases and employs imaginative arguments on behalf of his client to achieve the best results possible.’ ‘He is knowledgeable and accomplished beyond his years.’ (2016)
‘A good advocate who comes over very well.’ ‘He is extremely hard-working, highly approachable and a good communicator.’ (2016)
‘He did an extremely good job in difficult circumstances.’ (2015)
‘He is already very good and in five years will be a major name in the field.’ (2014)
‘Michael Uberoi appears regularly in public inquiries. [He] recently advised the former Director General of the BBC in connection with his appearance before the Pollard Inquiry.’ (2014)
Michael Uberoi ‘Also tackles sports-related cases…[he] has a growing practice in this field and is building a solid reputation amongst his peers.’ (2014)
‘Michael Uberoi is making a name for himself’ (2013)
Legal 500
‘Exceptionally skilled in communicating with clients.’ (2017)
‘An exceptional advocate, who is doggedly determined to ensure fairness for his client.’ (2017)
‘A great team player, who takes a sensible, pragmatic approach’ (2016)
‘An excellent junior, who punches above his weight.’ (2016)
‘A bright junior with a strong intellect and good judgement; he will go far.’ (2016)
‘Knowledgeable beyond his years.’ (2014)
Michael is called to the Bar of Northern Ireland.
Financial Services and Insurance Junior of the Year | Legal 500 Bar Awards 2025
