Michael Wilson & Partners Limited v Emmott

In *Michael Wilson & Partners Limited v Emmott*, the Court of Appeal considered an application by the appellant for a stay of orders requiring payment of costs thrown away due to a late adjournment and security for the costs of the appeal. The stay was sought pending the resolution of an application in the United Kingdom to vary a freezing order, and also pending the end of crisis measures in Kazakhstan related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The respondent consented to the variation of the UK order to the extent necessary to permit compliance with the orders sought to be stayed. The Court also addressed a notice to produce served by the appellant while the prosecution of the appeal was stayed, on a respondent who objected to the Court's jurisdiction. The central question was whether the respondent had submitted to the Court's jurisdiction or waived his right to object by seeking costs, security for costs, and relief from the notice to produce.

McCallum JA determined that the appellant was not entitled to the stay of the costs orders. The Court reasoned that the appellant had not demonstrated a sufficient basis for such a stay, particularly in light of the respondent's consent to the necessary variation of the UK freezing order. Regarding the notice to produce, the Court found that the respondent had not submitted to the Court's jurisdiction or waived his right to object by seeking costs, security for costs, or relief from the notice. The Court concluded that the respondent's actions were consistent with protecting his position while maintaining his objection to jurisdiction.

Consequently, the Court refused the relief sought in prayer 4 of the appellant’s amended notice of motion. However, by separate order, the respondent was relieved from the obligation to produce the documents referred to in the notice to produce served by the appellant on 20 April 2020, until further order.