Michael
Trevelyan

In the matter of three Petitioners v. Nine Respondents (2025): Michael was instructed on behalf of the Respondents to settle pleadings in response to an unfair prejudice Petition filed at the High Court. The case involved multiple shareholders of numerous connected limited companies and raised a wide range of issues pursuant to the Companies Act 2006 including alleged failures by the directors to act with reasonable care, skill and diligence and improper use of their powers.

Company A v. Company B (2025): Michael was instructed to advise the Claimant company in respect of a commercial dispute valued at over £2,500,00.00 relating to the use of card payment processing services.

A v. B (2025): Michael was instructed for the Defendant in this interesting and complex personal injury claim. The Claimant alleged that she was a victim of historical childhood sexual abuse by the Defendant and had issued a claim for damages in an unlimited sum in excess of £200,000.00. The claim remains ongoing.

Three Claimants v. Three Defendants (2025): Michael was instructed to act for the Claimants in respect of a boundary dispute involving combined allegations and cross-allegations of harassment.

A Company v. A Bank (2025): Michael was instructed to advise the Claimant company regarding a potential claim against the bank of which it was a customer following a series of fraudulent transactions being completed after the company had advised the bank not to proceed. The sum lost as a result of the fraud was over £125,000.00.

Two Claimants v. One Defendant and Persons Unknown (2024): Michael was instructed in this unusual possession claim by a freeholder against a leaseholder following expiry of the lease. The claim raised wide-ranging and difficult issues including historical allegations of fraud and wrongdoing against both the Claimants and their predecessors in title.

A Mortgagee v. Two Defendants (2024): Michael was instructed to represent the first Defendant at the trial of this claim valued at a sum in excess of £1,700,000.00. The case raised various issues relating to the validity of assignments and accounting of sums paid over a significant period. As a result the case was document heavy with disclosure in excess of 4,000 pages which required Michael to undertake an analysis of both extensive transaction data and expert accountancy evidence.

Michael is well known in the First-tier and Upper Tribunal as a knowledgeable and persuasive advocate. His immigration and asylum practice encompasses the full range of matters before the Tribunal including EEA cases, human rights appeals, appeals against deportation and more. Michael previously accepted instructions on behalf of the Secretary of State but now exclusively represents Appellants although he is able to bring his detailed knowledge of Home Office policies and procedures to bear in appropriate cases. Michael is effective in bringing together the issues in an appeal and synthesising the most powerful arguments by utilising a range of sources including the Immigration Rules, country guidance and expert evidence. He is known for his ability to present and explain extremely complex legal issues to lay clients in clear and friendly terms, often where there is a language barrier.

In addition to appearing before the Tribunal, Michael regularly produces written work on difficult or obscure aspects of immigration and asylum law. For example Michael has advised on the ability of a Kenyan national to derive British citizenship from his grandfather, an Indian national born during the colonial era, which required an analysis of the British Nationality Act from 1948 onwards and an understanding of both domestic and Indian national law from the date of independence.

Notable Cases (anonymised)

TC v SSHD – represented a Zimbabwean asylum seeker who was an active member of the MDC. The Appellant’s case had previously been dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal but, following Michael’s instruction, the Appellant succeeded at a fresh hearing before the First-teir Tribunal.

AB v SSHD – represented a national of the DRC who was seeking to resist his deportation on human rights grounds. The Appellant was a self-styled Christian prophet and television personality who had been convicted of serious sexual assaults on members of his congregation. The case had gained national coverage in the press.

SS v SSHD – represented an Afghan diplomat and close confidant of President Karzai who sought asylum on the basis that he had been the subject of a political purge in Afghanistan and would be killed on return.

GK v SSHD – successfully represented an Afghan Sikh who, the Respondent alleged, had a right of residence in India as a result of his wife’s claimed Indian nationality. Michael persuaded the Tribunal that there was no such right of residence in the case and the appeal was granted.

“Thank you ever so much for attending and for yet another exceptional outcome.”

“The barrister you placed me with, Mr Michael Trevelyan, has provided advice and assistance that I would consider above what he has been paid to do. I appreciate his kindness and professionalism and just wanted to highlight the standard of his service to you.”

“I thank you again and your team, words fail me at present and for the next a few days the light at the end of the tunnel has shone through I can see the mountains and it is thanks to you. Words fail me sir I thank you. A true blessing for me.“

“I really cannot thank you enough, Mr. Trevelyan”

“Fantastic thank you very much for your assistance Michael, this is a great result and the client is extremely satisfied”

Direct access qualified
Head of Civil Team

Interests: Away from his career at the Bar Michael is the proud owner of a maltipoo puppy, Casper, who helps to keep him active and is always willing to give his opinion on the merits of a case!

• Duke of Edinburgh Entrance Scholar 
• Exhibition Award Winner (Inner Temple) 
• Western Circuit Advocacy Prize