Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (No 4)

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory considered an application by Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd (the appellant) concerning a notice to produce documents. The dispute arose in the context of an ongoing application for security for costs brought by the sixth respondent against the appellant, which had been the subject of previous decisions by the Court of Appeal. This judgment, however, did not address the security for costs application itself, which had been adjourned. Instead, it focused on the appellant's attempt to compel the sixth and seventh respondents to produce documents pursuant to a notice to produce.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the appellant's notice to produce, dated 19 April 2022, was valid and required compliance by the sixth and seventh respondents. The appellant sought an order for these respondents to comply with the notice by 30 April 2022. The Court was required to determine if the notice met the procedural requirements for production of documents under the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT).

The Court reasoned that Rule 6748(2) of the Court Procedures Rules mandates that a notice to produce must be served not later than 14 days before the date set for the hearing, unless the Court orders otherwise. In this instance, the appellant had not served the notice within this timeframe, and no such order had been made by the Court. Consequently, the sixth and seventh respondents were not obliged to comply with the notice on the hearing date. The Court therefore dismissed the appellant's notice to produce dated 19 April 2022 for failing to comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 6748(2). The Court also declined to make an order compelling compliance with the notice as sought by the appellant.