Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd as the assignee of Robert Colin Nicholls & Temujin International Limited (as trustee of Temujin International (trading) Trust) & Temujin Services Limited v Emmott - Gross Sum Costs Order

[2025] NSWSC 179

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd as the assignee of Robert Colin Nicholls & Temujin International Limited (as trustee of Temujin International (trading) Trust) & Temujin Services Limited v Emmott – Gross Sum Costs Order [2025] NSWSC 179

Hearing dates:

On the papers

Date of orders:

11 March 2025

Decision date:

11 March 2025

Jurisdiction:

Equity - Commercial List

Before:

Hammerschlag CJ in Eq

Decision:

The plaintiff pay the defendant the sum of $221,200, as a gross sum instead of assessed costs.

Catchwords:

COSTS – Civil Procedure Act 2005 s 98(4)(c) – Determination by the Court of a specific gross sum to be paid instead of assessed costs – Approach to be taken – Where defendant’s proposed figure discounted and the plaintiff’s proposed figure barely differ – HELD – Plaintiff’s amount, rounded down to the nearest hundred dollars ordered

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 98(4)(c)

Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Gabrielle v Abood (No 4) [2023] NSWCA 100

Hamod v New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375

Re JRL; Ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342

Category:

Costs

Parties:

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd as the assignee of Robert Colin Nicholls & Temujin International Limited (as trustee of Temujin International (trading) Trust) & Temujin Services Limited (Plaintiff)
John Forster Emmott (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
John Baird (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Michael E. Wilson (Plaintiff)
Duggan Legal (Defendant)

File Number(s):

2016/00034380

Publication restriction:

Nil

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. On 22 November 2024, I delivered final judgment (Final Judgment) in this matter: Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd as the assignee of Robert Colin Nicholls & Temujin International Limited (as trustee of Temujin International (trading) Trust) & Temujin Services Limited v Emmott – Final [2024] NSWSC 1489. The defendant (Emmott) succeeded. Definitions in the Final Judgment are used here. I determined that there was not any partnership between him and Nicholls or Slater. I ordered the plaintiff (MWP) to pay Emmott’s costs of his failed application to adjourn the final hearing referred to in [61] and [62] of the Final Judgment on the indemnity basis and otherwise that MWP pay Emmott’s costs on the ordinary basis. Additionally, pursuant to s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (CPA) I ordered that Emmott is entitled to a specified gross sum instead of assessed costs. This is required and appropriate so as to bring this long-standing litigation to a close.

2. I directed that within 21 days of 22 November 2024, that is, by 13 December 2024, Emmott file and serve an affidavit with supporting material and a brief outline of submissions motivating the specified gross sum which he contends should be ordered.

3. I ordered that MWP file and serve by no later than 15 January 2025 any affidavits and a brief written outline upon which it intends to rely should it oppose the gross sum contended for by the defendant. I stood the proceedings over before me to 7 February 2025.

4. I said that if, after any material had been received, I concluded that I should assess the amount on the papers, I would communicate that to the parties’ respective solicitors.

5. In accordance with my directions, Emmott filed an affidavit by his solicitor, Mr Peter Joseph Duggan (Duggan), sworn 12 December 2024 and a brief outline of submissions by Mr Baird, of counsel, of the same date.

6. However, MWP did not serve any affidavits or written outline as directed.

The Adjournment Application

7. Given the procedural history, particularly MWP’s multiple adjournment applications, it was perhaps predictable that MWP would not comply with my directions and seek an adjournment or extension. The day after the deadline expired, MWP filed in the Registry a notice of motion seeking an extension of time to file and serve any affidavits and written outline until 3 March 2025. As well, MWP filed an affidavit (the 35^th) of Wilson sworn on 15 January 2025 in support of the motion.

8. Much of the affidavit is irrelevant. However, so far as it was pertinent to the adjournment application, its thrust is that Wilson was incapacitated from 15 November 2024 until 9 January 2025. He says he became sick on 15 November 2024 and was hospitalised. After discharge he made daily visits to doctors at a clinic until 30 December 2024.

9. The application was, to say the least, not burdened with merit.

10. If Wilson was indisposed at the time of the final hearing, his indisposition was not so acute so as to prevent him from travelling to London between 17 and 20 December 2024 for a hearing. Moreover, he was able, between 18 November 2024 and 17 December 2024 to generate numerous documents and make communications directly with my Chambers. Many (but not all) of these are identified, some with contents, in the Schedule to this judgment.

11. Wilson’s evidence did not address what prevented him from complying with the directions, given that his incapacity was, on his own evidence, over by 9 January 2025. He has had conduct of these proceedings for years and is a highly experienced legal practitioner whom, one would expect, would have little difficulty in responding to the material relied upon by Emmott in respect of the gross sum costs order.

12. Wilson provided no evidence of what efforts, if any, were made to comply with the Court’s directions and MWP did not move for an extension until 16 January 2025, after the deadline had expired.

13. In the end, however, I determined to accede to his application for extra time – until 3 March 2025 – principally because the costs detriment to Emmott was assuaged by an undertaking by Wilson to pay Emmott’s costs thrown away by the indulgence. There will be additional delay, but it will not be extensive, and I imposed a guillotine order on MWP. The costs being claimed by Emmott are not insubstantial. Also, Emmott has his final judgment.

14. I directed that any reply evidence or submissions from Emmott be filed and served by 10 March 2025.

15. An affidavit and further submissions both dated 10 March 2025 were received.

Application to Appear Remotely

16. Before making the costs assessment, I record that on 5 February 2025, there was referred to me an application, made online, by MWP that Wilson be given leave to appear remotely on 7 February 2025 because its “costs lawyers” were not available as one of their members, Mr Dudman, passed away shortly before “Xmas”, his replacement was otherwise booked and engaged on matters in Queensland and MWP’s costs counsel were not available on the day. I refused the application. My Chambers informed MWP accordingly.

17. On 5 February 2025 at 11:56am, Wilson emailed my Associate:

Dear Madam,

Many thanks for your email, and guidance.

Please would you be so kind as to inform His Honour that I wish to appear as MWP’s solicitor and corporate legal representative and attend remotely on this occasion since unfortunately MWP’s Costs Lawyer Mr Dudman of Blackstone died and his colleague Kate Chan is in Queensland and not able to attend in his stead, Ms Chan tried to get costs counsel to attend but Ms Castle was not available for this Friday, hence my need to appear remotely, and by telephone or AVL please.

Of course, as an Australian, solicitor with a practicing certificate I would love to come home to Sydney, but to do so involves two overnight and all night flights, a time-zone change of 6 hours, and about 40 hours of traveling and there is not enough time now left for me to get to Sydney and to arrive in time, and as you will appreciate that is out of proportion for a call over and directions hearing, as to which we have filed and served a Motion and affidavit in support, seeking an extension of time.

Please would you be so kind as to ask his Honour to reconsider and permit me to appear by telephone and/or AVL on this occasion.

Yours sincerely,

Michael E. Wilson

18. Also, on 5 February 2025 at 5:01pm, Wilson emailed my Associate the following email (excluding material attached):

Dear Madam,

Please would you be so kind as to respond to the enclosed, [sic] attendance by Phone and/or AVL is the only practical option given the enormous distance, time-zone change and flight times involved, it takes 2 days and 2 nights to get from Central Asia to Sydney.

HH may find helpful the attached Guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor in the UK where the default position in this modern world is all hearings of half a day or less are conducted remotely to further the overriding objective and to avoid wasting time and costs.

We also attach the draft SMO’s we seek and a recent EWCA judgment as against the Defendant by Lord Justice Males. As a matter of law and fact the Defendant is already bound by the NSW-1 judgments and the arbitral award and EWCA and UKSC judgments and the findings and admissions as to his Temujin Partnership.

Yours sincerely,

Michael E. Wilson

19. On 6 February 2025, Wilson emailed my Associate saying that he was travelling to Australia to arrive on Friday morning. He requested that the hearing be scheduled for 2pm instead of 10am in case delays occurred. Wilson emailed my Associate the following email (excluding material attached):

Dear Madam,

As we have not heard from you and His Honour, Mr Wilson is travelling en-route to Australia from Almaty via all of Bangkok, Singapore, and on to Sydney, arriving Friday morning after two days and nights travelling. Mr Wilson is bringing with him and will show His Honour the expert medical evidence concerned which is of the highest quality (see MEW-32 and MEW-33) proving the force-majeure and the errors in [71], [75]-[78] of the Judgment. On 20.12.24, HHJ Pelling KC in the EWHC fully accepted the expert evidence, and without question. It is only MWP that since 02.02.16 has diligently prosecuted these proceedings after the deferral by the Tribunal to Australia, overcoming the Defendant’s unlawful injunctions, improper stays, desctruction [sic] and the failure to disclose and provide expert evidence of the law applicable to the partnership.

Whilst we note the hearing has been scheduled for 10am, we would ask this be moved to 2pm instead given the above just in case delays occur.

Please confirm.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd.

20. In fact, Wilson appeared at 10am and argued the motion.

21. During the course of argument, he raised the fact that I would not permit him to appear remotely and conveyed that he wished to appear remotely in future. He opposed my dealing with the gross sum costs application on the papers.

22. He asked me why I would not let him appear remotely.

23. He has persistently acted unethically by frequently and improperly addressing contentious correspondence on matters of substance including complaints of serious professional misconduct levelled at Emmott’s lawyers, directly to me, via my Associate, without leave and plainly with the intention of influencing my decision-making in these proceedings. The language used by him is, at its lowest, disrespectful to the Court.

24. His behaviour has offended rule 22.5 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 (NSW) which provides:

22.5 A solicitor must not, outside an ex parte application or a hearing of which an opponent has had proper notice, communicate in the opponent’s absence with the court concerning any matter of substance in connection with current proceedings unless:

22.5.1 the court has first communicated with the solicitor in such a way as to require the solicitor to respond to the court; or

22.5.2 the opponent has consented beforehand to the solicitor communicating with the court in a specific manner notified to the opponent by the solicitor.

25. More importantly, it has offended the cardinal principle enunciated by Mason J in Re JRL; Ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342 at 350 as follows:

A central element in the system of justice administered by our courts is that it should be fair and this means that it must be open, impartial and even-handed. It is for this reason that one of the cardinal principles of the law is that a judge tries the case before him on the evidence and arguments presented to him in open court by the parties or their legal representatives and by reference to those matters alone, unless Parliament otherwise provides. It would be inconsistent with basic notions of fairness that a judge should take into account, or even receive, secret or private representations on behalf of a party or from a stranger with reference to a case which he has to decide. This principle immediately distinguishes the judicial branch from other branches of government, except in so far as they may be relevantly affected by the rules of natural justice. In conformity with the principle, every private communication to a judge made for the purpose of influencing his decision in a case is treated as a contempt of court because it may affect the course of justice: In re Dyce Sombre (1849) 1 Mac. & G. 116, at p. 122 [41 ER 1207, at p. 1209] per Lord Cottenham L.C. Indeed, it is regarded as a serious contempt.

26. Allowing Wilson to appear remotely would hamper the Court’s ability to supervise his conduct as an officer of the Court. The correspondence from Wilson, which causes the most concern are his emails of 23 November 2024 at 11:28pm, 26 November 2024 at 6:55pm, 29 November 2024 at 4:42am, 1 December 2024 at 10:54pm and 3 December 2024 at 5:21am. It is appropriate to include them in full.

1. 23 November 2024 11:28pm:

Dear Associate,

With reference to your email below, MWP shall be taking matters further (including by exercising our rights on appeal and by judicial complaint to the Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner). As HH knows, we won before in the HCA (x2) and the NSWCA (x3) well as the EWCA and the UKSC, the latter of which also comprise Australian judgments as of 08.02.24, and many admissions and binding findings have been made as to the Defendant’s Temujin Partnership since early 09.05, to date.

We respectfully subit [sic] that there is and was no basis in fact or law for HH to reject (including as spurious) the first-rate Medical Certificate promptly issued by International SOS of 15.11.24, a leading global health service provider and organisation of substance and repute. At the end of the day, we are all human beings, and Mr Wilson cannot be blamed or criticised for getting sick and for being unable to travel, given the medical advice, IATA guidelines and airline policies. He could not be expected to put his health at risk.

It is entirely incorrect to suggest that the Defendant ever required MWP to produce the International SOS Doctor concerned for cross-examination. No notice was ever given by email as was wrongly and falsely submitted and asserted on 18.11.24 by Mr Baird, and who chose to so cynically and deliberately mislead the Court into error (being entirely contingent). In any event, the Dr concerned was waiting and available all night- see MEW 32 as filed and served in time, and where all of MEW-1-32 is on the record, substantively unopposed.

It is not correct that the Defendant’s destruction, refusal to allow inspection and give disclosure is or could be “hotly contested” as such comprise final and binding findings, incapable of further dispute, appeal or challenge and were proven by forensic expert evidence. The record also shows and proves that since 03.12.18 to date the Defendant is and has long been MWP’s judgment debtor and debtor in all jurisdictions, has nothing left and nothing to purport to set-off, including given our rights qua Sinclair since 27.08.21.

MWP fully reserves its rights, and in all respects given the gross injustice suffered and wrongly imposed. MWP has been responsible for no delay since early 09.05 when the Temujin Partnership was first formed from within MWP, and at its cost by the Defendant as part of his deceit, fraud, fraudulent conspiracy to injure, wholesale theft, destruction, gross, serious and dishonest breaches of fiduciary duty and contract and over a sustained period of time, as already exposed, proven, found and admitted, through 09.22, as the record shows and proves. There are already many binding findings and admissions as to the truth and reality of the Defendant’s Temujin Partnership, so that with great respect HH has clearly fallen into error.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd.

2. 26 November 2024 6:55pm (excluding material attached):

Dear Associate,

With reference to the enclosed, please would you be so kind as to advise and inform His Honour that MWP and Mr Wilson have yet further unimpeachable medical evidence of the highest quality which, like that of International SOS, unequivocally shows and proves and beyond all and any doubt that His Honour simply had no basis for, was entirely unjustified and wrong to purport to make the comments, criticisms and findings he did, including by using the word “spurious”, and all of which should never have been made and could not have ever been properly suggested, let alone advanced or sustained on any objective, fair and just analysis, indicating the apparent if not actual bias.

As noted, we are taking matters further, given the gross injustice and enormous wrongs improperly inflicted by HH on MWP and Mr Wilson, for no good and proper reason.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd.

3. 29 November 2024 4:42am (excluding material attached):

Dear Associate,

With reference to the enclosed, please would you be so kind as to now also pass the enclosed to His Honour which unequivocally shows and proves and beyond all and any doubt that His Honour is and was in error, and had no proper basis.

Please acknowledge safe receipt, we shall be also be filing and serving a further affidavit, following on from MEW-32, as filed and served on 201124. As HH knows, we rely, inter alia on the law as set out in Roult vs North West Strategic Health Authority at [2010] 1WLR 482, Tibbles vs SIG at [2012] EWCA Civ. 518, D. Terry vs BCS Corp at [2020] EWHC3882 (Comm), at [2017] EWHC 1176 QB, and also at [2020] EWHC3882, and related authorities, cases, law and rules.

We await HH’s retraction and most profuse apology given the unimpeachable evidence before the Court, which HH could not go seek to behind, second guess, contravene and contradict. No Notice of cross-examination was ever issued by Baird, Duggan and Emmott who misled the Court into error, as set out in the enclosed emails they have failed to reply to, which speaks volumes.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd.

4. 1 December 2024 10:54pm (excluding material attached):

Dear Associate,

Please would you also be so kind as to now pass the enclosed MEW-33 and Notice of Intention to Appeal to His Honour, as already filed, lodged and served. There is no doubt that Messrs Baird, Duggan and Emmott misled the Court and HH on 18.11.24, as no notice of intention to cross-examine was ever issued, which obviously is a very serious thing involving as it does officers of the Court.

Please acknowledge safe receipt.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd.

5. 3 December 2024 5:21am:

Dear Associate,

Please would you also be so kind as to now acknowledge safe receipt of our prior emails and their enclosures.

As HH knows, MWP has invoked UCPR 36 (especially 36.15 and 36.16), and its rights under the relevant law, rules, practice and procedure especially given we have exposed and can prove that Messrs Emmott, Baird and Duggan cynically and deliberately lied to and misled HH and the Court into error on 18.11.24, and given our unimpeachable first-class medical evidence, proving our application was never spurious and beyond all and any doubt, and further in light of the unarguable fact that since 03.12.18 to date Mr Emmott is and has always been a judgment debtor and debtor of MWP in all jurisdictions, by way of example only.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd.

Costs Assessment

27. Section 98(4)(c) of the CPA provides:

In particular, at any time before costs are referred for assessment, the court may make an order to the effect that the party to whom costs are to be paid is to be entitled to--

(a) costs up to, or from, a specified stage of the proceedings, or

(b) a specified proportion of the assessed costs, or

(c) a specified gross sum instead of assessed costs, or

(d) such proportion of the assessed costs as does not exceed a specified amount.

28. Apart from the costs order which I made on 22 November 2024, Ball J (as his Honour then was) made orders against MWP on 30 January 2023, 31 March 2023, 28 February 2024 and 28 April 2024. Duggan explains that there was difficulty in separating items of costs between the various costs orders. This does not matter, as I have ordered MWP to pay Emmott’s costs of the proceedings.

29. On 3 March 2025, at the following times Wilson filed the following:

1. at 9:46pm: report by a solicitor, Mr Gareth Jones, who specialises in legal costs;

2. at 10:33pm: Mr Wilson’s 38^th affidavit (sworn 3 March 2025); and

3. at 11:54pm: written submissions.

30. The expert report is unexceptional and well-prepared.

31. Wilson’s 38^th affidavit repeats some material from earlier affidavits and is directed largely to matters irrelevant to this costs assessment, such as:

1. his denial of any indebtedness to Emmott;

2. the alleged fact that Emmott is impecunious and has no assets and therefore, is and was never able to contract with any lawyers in which he incurs actual and personal liability;

3. the alleged fact that Emmott has never had any of his costs taxed, assessed and certified anywhere in the world;

4. that Emmott is a judgment debtor of MWP in all jurisdictions with nothing left and nothing to set off;

5. an assertion that all and any alleged fees should formally taxed in the usual way;

6. an asserted lack of evidence of any payments ever being made by Emmott in respect of costs;

7. an unsubstantiated attack on Mr Duggan’s accreditation including an assertion that he works from home with no office, no solicitors, no paralegals, no employees, no staff, no website, no computer systems, servers, no facilities and no infrastructure. Wilson makes the following scandalous statement:

Obviously, a retired solicitor working from home whilst on a pension and who prefers the conduct of litigation to playing chess or doing cross word puzzles as a pastime cannot be equated to a solicitor working at a firm of solicitors in downtown Sydney, with their teams of lawyers, systems, facilities, back-up and overhead and cannot therefore claim Sydney law firm rates, as Mr Duggan is appearing to you by claiming hourly rate of A$545, which therefore must be reduced. Further, of course, if the Defendant is being funded, whether directly or indirectly, there is a duty to disclose the same.

8. that a gross sum costs order is unjust, unfair and inappropriate.

32. In Gabrielle v Abood (No 4) [2023] NSWCA 100 (Bell CJ, Kirk and Adamson JJA), the Court said of the discretion given to the Court by s 98(4)(c) of the CPA to make a gross sum costs order that it is not confined and may be exercised when the circumstances warrant its exercise. The Court went on to say:

…it should only be exercised when the Court considers that it can do so fairly between the parties, and that includes having sufficient confidence in arriving at an appropriate sum on the materials available; courts have typically applied a discount in assessing costs on a gross sum basis; and the court is not required to undertake a detailed examination of the kind that would be appropriate to taxation or formal costs assessment…

see too Hamod v New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375 at [813]-[820].

33. The Court will, of course, also bring to bear its own experience with respect to costs.

34. Duggan provides adequate material in relation to the costs that have actually been incurred by Emmott. Emmott’s total claim (excluding cents) is for:

1. solicitor’s costs: $109,381;

2. solicitor’s disbursements $3982;

3. counsel’s fees $147,300;

4. counsel’s disbursements $3178; and

5. witness expenses $2480,

plus $5670 (which includes $3270 for solicitor’s costs) for preparing the gross sum costs application (including the reply) making a total of $271,991.

35. These figures are eminently reasonable, especially bearing in mind that MWP constantly produces written material which has to be considered and often dealt with. Examples appear above and in the Schedule. If anything, the charges are on the cheap side. The hourly rates are comparatively modest when measured against rates routinely charged by practitioners and seen by the Court in complex matters, of which this is one. Nevertheless, there should be applied a discount of 10% to the solicitor’s fees to reflect the difference between indemnity costs and party and party costs. This would bring the total to $260,726.

36. There should be applied a further discount of 15% to the total to reflect the fact that MWP does not have the opportunity to challenge the assessment. This results in $221,617. The figure does not take account of the fact that part of the costs to be paid by MWP are on the indemnity basis. (I interpolate that in his most recently served material Emmott claims $230,593.66.)

37. Remarkably, Mr Jones’ assessment of costs – making various adjustments downward of both the ordinary and indemnity costs components is $216,283 plus $4940 for the gross sum costs application, making a total of $221,223 (a difference of $394 from the discounted amount of $221,617).

38. I consider that Emmott is entitled to the costs of the gross sum costs application.

39. Given the de minimis difference between Emmott’s claim discounted and MWP’s assessment, I consider that the appropriate order is that the plaintiff pay to the defendant the sum of $221,200 (being MWP’s figure, rounded down to the nearest hundred - in respect of which MWP can have no complaint) as a gross sum instead of assessed costs.

Schedule

40. Between 18 November 2024 and 17 December 2025 my Chambers received numerous written communications from MWP/Wilson, including but not limited to:

1. 18 November 2024 1:18am email enclosing MWP’s Opening Statement of Issues for the final hearing;

2. 18 November 2024 2:02am email attaching an affidavit of MJ Bridgen dated 17 November 2024;

3. 18 November 2024 4:05am email enclosing an affidavit of PW Foster OBE dated 17 November 2024 and MWP’s chronology;

4. 18 November 2024 11:30am email informing me that Wilson “will fly to Sydney tonight and be in person in court at 2pm Wednesday, sick as I am to present MWP’s case and to cross-examine Mr Emmott…”;

5. 18 November 2024 12:28pm email referring amongst others to Wilson’s offer of an undertaking to fly to Sydney;

6. 20 November 2024 4:59pm enclosing IATA Guidelines;

7. 21 November 2024 2:25am email attaching 32^nd affidavit of Wilson dated 20 November 2024 and seeking to reopen the hearing of MWP’s notice of motion to vacate;

8. 21 November 2024 8:03am email enclosing sealed 32^nd affidavit of Wilson;

9. 21 November 2024 2:09pm email said to enclose, a draft intended notice of motion for my attention and documents pertinent to the EWHC proceedings referred to in the Final Judgment [11];

10. 21 November 2024 9:24pm email requesting that the reopening application be heard and determined before delivery of judgment including granting Wilson leave to appear remotely;

11. 23 November 2024 11:28pm email as quoted in the judgment [26(1)];

12. 26 November 2024 6:55pm email (excluding material attached) as quoted in the judgment [26(2)];

13. 29 November 2024 4:42am email (excluding material attached) as quoted in the judgment [26(3)];

14. 1 December 2024 10:54pm email (excluding material attached) as quoted in the judgment [26(4)];

15. 3 December 2024 5:21am email as quoted in the judgment [26(5)];

16. 5 December 2024 5:39pm email the following email (excluding material attached):

Dear Associate,

Unfortunately, we have still not received any reply to our email and enclosures, we look forward to and await receipt of the same.

Meanwhile, see the enclosed, as to our Appeal from HH, as filed on 01.12.24l.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd.

17. 17 December 2024 6:46pm the following email:

Dear Associate,

With reference to the above, please inform HH that MWP has also appealed in good time the NSWCA judgment and order of 15.11.24 to the HCA in S162/2024, and is confident of success (we won in the HCA in 2011 and again on 08.09.22).

As the record shows and proves there are many seminal findings and admissions as well as contemporaneous documents as to Mr Emmott’s Temujin Partnership since early 09.05 to date, including by which he and this Court is bound, and there is no doubt at all Mr Emmott is and has been a judgment debtor and debtor of MWP in all jurisdictions, since 03.12.18, as the record shows and proves,

Clearly His Honour was lied to and misled into error by Messrs Baird, Duggan and Emmott, as part of their usual modus-operendi. [sic]

Yours faithfully,

Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd.

**********

Amendments

12 March 2025 - Coversheet - corrected typographical error in the catchwords.

Decision last updated: 12 March 2025