Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Emmott (No 4)

In *Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Emmott (No 4)*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered applications by Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd (the applicant) to review decisions of a Judge of Appeal ordering security for costs. The applicant, located in the British Virgin Islands, sought to challenge these orders, arguing that there was no evidence of Australian assets against which a costs order could be readily executed. The applicant also sought an adjournment of the review hearing, contending that a decision from an English court would likely alter the outcome of the review.

The Court was required to determine whether the Judge of Appeal had erred in ordering security for costs against the applicant, and whether the applicant's applications for review and adjournment should be granted. A further issue arose concerning the conduct of the applicant's solicitor, who had maintained a ground of review that the judge should have recused himself, despite a transcript indicating that no such application was advanced after disclosure by the judge. The Court also considered whether the solicitor's conduct warranted a referral to the Legal Services Commissioner.

The Court dismissed the applicant's motions for review and adjournment. It found that the applicant had failed to establish grounds for overturning the original security for costs orders, particularly given the lack of evidence of Australian assets. The Court also determined that the English court's decision was unlikely to have a material impact on the review. Regarding the solicitor's conduct, the Court noted unsatisfactory aspects in the presentation of the case and the solicitor's submissions concerning the recusal ground, and provided an opportunity for the solicitor to show cause why the matter should not be referred to the Legal Services Commissioner.

The Court ordered that the applicant's motions filed on 2 June 2025 be dismissed. Further, the motions filed on 28 March 2025 and 30 April 2025 were dismissed with costs. The Court also provided directions for any application by Mr Emmott for a special costs order and noted that a copy of the reasons would be supplied to Mr Richard Thomas, with directions for him to provide an account of his involvement in the preparation of certain submissions. Finally, Mr Wilson was given 14 days to file submissions showing cause why the judgment and papers should not be referred to the Legal Services Commissioner.