The injunction taken against Michael Flatley is an attempt "to control and demand and dictate what happens in relation to Lord Of The Dance", a court has heard.
Lawyers representing the dancer said the company blocking him from creative involvement with his stage show is "nothing more than a management agent entitled to a fee".
The Irish traditional dancer and choreographer rose to international prominence performing Riverdance at Eurovision in 1994, before going on to create the stage show The Lord Of The Dance.
The production's 30th anniversary tour is due to play in Dublin's 3 Arena on 5 February, continuing in 2026 in a number of countries including the UK, Germany, Croatia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.
Switzer Consulting is taking legal action in a civil case against the choreographer and dancer for alleged breach of contract, relating to an agreement the firm says was reached to allow it to run the dance shows.
Switzer has already secured a temporary injunction to stop Mr Flatley from interfering with the shows, with the dancer's lawyers arguing previously the performance was in danger of "falling apart" without his involvement.
At The Chancery Court in the Royal Courts of Justice in Belfast, Gary McHugh KC, for Switzer, said it would need extra time before the case was fully heard after a second affidavit from Mr Flatley was provided at 3.55pm on Monday.
He said the second affidavit raised "new issues, but issues that are very relevant" because they "will speak to the credibility and reliability" to do with how Mr Flatley "manages his finances".
David Dunlop KC, representing Mr Flatley, outlined that under a terms of service agreement, Mr Flatley transferred intellectual property rights for Lord Of The Dance to Switzer and it was then required to provide business management services to Mr Flatley such as accounts and payroll.
He told the court: "Mr Flatley agreed by this agreement to licence to Switzer certain intellectual property rights of Lord Of The Dance.
"Switzer then agreed in respect of the fee that was to be paid, that they would provide management services in respect of the Lord Of The Dance show."
He outlined the fees charged would be £35,000 a month for the first 24 months, increasing to £40,000 a month.
He added: "What we therefore have is Switzer, the servicing agent, reading an application, saying, in essence, it by virtue on licence, has proprietary interest to hold, to control and demand and dictate what happens in relation to Lord Of The Dance.
"But in fact what Switzer has, its height, is a right to be paid for services."
He later added: "Switzer is saying, 'we require an injunction to stop Mr Flatley exercising any control' in circumstances where Switzer is nothing more than a management agent entitled to a fee."
Mr Dunlop further claimed Switzer filed new accounts on Saturday, increasing its value based on Lord Of The Dance intellectual property.
He said at the beginning of 2024, Switzer's net asset position was "negative to the tune of just under £30,000 (€35,000) with creditors falling due of more than £230,000 and current assets of £221,000".
But at the weekend Switzer filed fresh accounts that showed net assets of "£2.1 million or thereabouts" and the capital asset is their licence agreement with Mr Flatley.
He said: "In essence, Switzer is now restating its accounts and attaching a value of more than £2 million to the intellectual property rights" on the licence agreement with Mr Flatley.
The case will be heard in full on Wednesday at which point the judge said he will indicate his views on the injunction's continuation so Mr Flatley will know if he can resume engagement with Lord Of The Dance before the upcoming Dublin performance.
Mr Dunlop also said Mr Flatley's legal team had applied to the court last week to have a Declaration of Trust provided, "in circumstances where Mr Flatley considered that he was his sole beneficial shareholder, and the benefit therefore, all of the interest which attaches to Switzer".
He said the trust makes clear "Mr Flatley's suspicions were entirely accurate, and he does, even on the plaintiff's case, hold the entire beneficial interest of the plaintiff company, and is held on trust by his formal financial advisers".
He added that Mr Flatley was "bizarrely" being denied access to "the very document, which granted him the entitlement to hold the beneficial interest in the plaintiff of all trust".
