Australia, May 14 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement:

1. TBASTEN AJA: On 22 November 2024, Hammerschlag CJ in Eq gave judgment in the matter of Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Emmott [2024] NSWSC 1489. On 19 February 2025, Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd (MWP) filed a summons seeking leave to appeal from that judgment, from an interlocutory judgment given on 18 November 2024, and from a later costs order made on 12 March 2025.

2. This judgment concerns three matters. First, the respondent, John Foster Emmott, filed a notice of motion on 17 March 2025, seeking an order that MWP provide security for costs "of the application for leave to appeal" in an amount of $62,800. The respondent's motion further sought a stay until that amount, or such other security as might be ordered, had been provided.

3. Secondly, MWP sought in its summons a stay of the orders made by the primary judge. In response to that application, the respondent proposed that the stay be granted on a condition that three amounts of unpaid costs be paid into court. MWP's application was not before the Court when the motion for security was first listed on 31 March 2025, because the summons had been stood over until 14 April 2025, when it was listed for directions. In the course of the hearing on 14 April the parties accepted that the interlocutory stay should be addressed.

4. Thirdly, the applicant filed a notice of motion on 28 March 2025 seeking to vary directions given by the Registrar on 19 March 2025. By order 1 the Registrar vacated the listing of the respondent's motion seeking security for costs for hearing on 24 March 2025. Order 2 directed the parties to file and serve evidence and submissions on that motion by midday on 28 March 2025. Order 3 directed that "there will be no extension of time beyond that made in order 2 above". Order 4 listed the respondent's motion for hearing on 31 March 2025. The gravamen of the applicant's objection to the orders was that they were made without hearing from the applicant and without consideration of the fact that the applicant sought to serve a notice to produce on the respondent with respect to documents the applicant claimed were relevant to the motion for security.

5. At the hearing on 31 March 2025 the substance of the challenge to the Registrar's orders was treated as being an application to vacate the hearing of the motion for security listed for that day. The direction in order 3 may be disregarded. The applicant's objection was accepted and the notice of motion for security was stood over to 2.30pm on 14 April 2025, with the applicant having until 5.00pm Sydney time on 10 April 2025 to file and serve evidence in relation to its assets in Australia and any explanation as to the relevance of the notice to produce. Further, the respondent was given leave to file a notice of motion to set aside the applicant's notice to produce. The Registrar's orders of 19 March 2025 have thus been superseded.

6. The applicant's notice of motion filed on 28 March 2025 was not in an appropriate form. Much of the contents (the substance of the document went for little over 4 pages) was a mixture of factual material (which should have been in an affidavit) and submissions. The order to set aside the Registrar's orders of 19 March 2025 could have been stated in a single line, but took ten lines. Annexed to the notice of motion was a notice to produce dated 19 March 2025 and addressed to the respondent's solicitor.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/196371711f049fdf911978ae)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.