Law shop Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd, and its former director, John Emmott, have once again found themselves in the New South Wales Court of Appeal, this time arguing over procedural matters related to MWP’s failure to provide security for costs until the eleventh hour.
MWP is a Kazakhstan-based law firm with offices in Central Asia. The firm was represented in proceedings by Michael Wilson himself – a former partner at Baker & McKenzie.
The issue comes about in the broader context of a commercial dispute between MWP and Emmott, which has been playing out in multiple jurisdictions for over a decade.
A preliminary issue for HH Christine Adamson was whether Wilson had a right to appear on behalf of MWP, noting that corporations under rule 7.1 of the UCPR must be represented by legal practitioners, unless they otherwise have leave of the Court.
As Wilson’s name was not recorded on the NSW Law Society website, Emmott’s counsel questioned whether this requirement was met.
Wilson, in turn, confirmed his practicing certificate was current and had not been suspended or cancelled.
HH accepted this, permitting him to appear for MWP via Audio-Visual Link from Kazakhstan, Wilson’s current place of residence.
The same cannot be said for the Federal Court, which, for the separate reason of Wilson’s conduct, ruled him ineligible to act for MWP in that jurisdiction (see our previous report: Vexatious Proceedings Unbowed).
HH then turned to the substantive issue – MWP’s failure to provide security for costs in relation to two further proceedings: 2024/416114 and 2024/449432.
In the latter matter, MWP had additionally been ordered to pay $221,200 as a condition of a stay of enforcement of a set of earlier equity orders by Hammerschlag CJ in March 2025. That payment also had not been made.
In light of MWP’s failure to provide security on time, Emmott, in late November last year applied to dismiss the two proceedings.
Additionally, or in the alternative, Emmott argued for their dismissal on the basis that MWP did not pay the $221,200 to stay the enforcement of equity orders.
However, the day before the matter was to be due in Court, MWP paid the necessary security for costs.
This late payment was sufficient for HH to refuse Emmott’s application for a guillotine order, noting that the failure to pay costs initially, without more, does not prevent a party from providing security at a later date.
MWP’s failure to pay the $221,200 was similarly not enough for HH to dismiss the proceedings entirely, and instead MWP agreed to renounce their option to stay the enforcement of the earlier equity orders.
Despite this seemingly favourable judgment, MWP did not make it out of the hearing entirely Scot-free, accepting it ought to stump the costs of Emmott’s applications for dismissal due to their late payment of security.
MWP additionally attempted to assert that Emmott’s dismissal applications should be adjourned so as to allow Wilson to brief new counsel on the effects of various recent decisions, including, in particular, a decision of the UK High Court.
This was refused by HH, citing the need to resolve issues justly, quickly and cheaply, noting that it would serve no real utility to delay the matter in this manner.
However, MWP did manage to extend the litigation by arguing that it is too early to quantify the costs owed to Emmott. HH agreed, ordering that this is to be determined at a later date, following further submissions from both parties.
It’s a celebrated instance of quick and cheap dispute resolution.