FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd v Emmott [2025] FCA 1005
File number(s): NSD 1396 of 2024 Judgment of: MOORE J Date of judgment: 22 August 2025 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where lawyer for the applicant does not have an Australian address for service – where solicitor based in Kazakhstan acting as the lawyer for the applicant – whether it is a requirement of the Federal Court Rules 2011 that a lawyer representing a corporation be a lawyer with an address in Australia – where lawyer for the applicant has an interest in the underlying dispute, is a witness to be cross-examined, is not independent or impartial and is conducting the proceedings in a manner inconsistent with ss 37M and 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 – whether to make an order that the applicant retain a lawyer with an Australian address to be the lawyer on the record – order made Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), ss 37M and 37N
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 11.01
Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 (NSW), r 27
Cases cited: Bell Lawyers Pty Limited v Pentelow (2019) 269 CLR 333
Dyer v Chrysanthou (No 2) (Injunction) [2021] FCA 641
Kallinicos v Hunt (2005) 64 NSWLR 561
Mumbin v Northern Territory of Australia (No 1) [2020] FCA 475
Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency Number of paragraphs: 21 Date of hearing: 20 August 2025 Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr M Wilson Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J Baird Solicitor for the Respondent: Duggan Legal ORDERS
NSD 1396 of 2024 BETWEEN: MICHAEL WILSON & PARTNERS, LTD
Applicant
AND: JOHN FOSTER EMMOTT
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:
22 AUGUST 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant shall as soon as possible, and in any event by 29 August 2025, retain a lawyer in Australia to be the lawyer on the record in these proceedings with an address in Australia at which documents can be served and emails received.
2.The applicant not be permitted to take any further step in these proceedings after 29 August 2025 if the step required by Order 1 has not occurred.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MOORE J:
The applicant, Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd (MWP), is a law firm based primarily in Kazakhstan. Mr Michael Earl Wilson of that firm had a falling out with other lawyers of the firm some years ago, including Mr John Forster Emmott who is the respondent to these proceedings. The resulting dispute has led to a very large number of proceedings in Australia and elsewhere, and an extraordinary level of disputation. There have been more than 80 judgments in proceedings brought by MWP against Mr Emmott…
Continue reading Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd v Emmott
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd v Emmott [2025] FCA 1005
- Case
- [2025] FCA 1005
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the Federal Court Rules 2011 and found that there was no explicit requirement that a lawyer representing a corporation must have an Australian address for service. However, the court emphasised the importance of having a lawyer with an Australian address to ensure proper service of documents and communication in the proceedings. The court was concerned about the applicant's lawyer's lack of independence and impartiality due to their interest in the underlying dispute and their role as a witness. This situation could potentially lead to a breach of the principles set out in sections 37M and 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, which require lawyers to act in a manner that is consistent with their professional responsibilities. The court concluded that it was necessary to ensure that the applicant retained a lawyer with an Australian address for service to maintain the integrity of the proceedings.
The court ordered that Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd must retain a lawyer in Australia with an address for service in Australia by 29 August 2025. The court also stipulated that the applicant would not be permitted to take any further steps in the proceedings after this date if the required step had not been taken. This order aimed to ensure proper service of documents, maintain communication in the proceedings, and uphold the principles of independence and impartiality required of lawyers in the Federal Court. The court's decision emphasised the importance of having a lawyer with an Australian address for service to ensure the effective administration of justice and to avoid potential conflicts of interest.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicant shall as soon as possible, and in any event by 29 August 2025, retain a lawyer in Australia to be the lawyer on the record in these proceedings with an address in Australia at which documents can be served and emails received.
2. The applicant not be permitted to take any further step in these proceedings after 29 August 2025 if the step required by Order 1 has not occurred.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.