A law firm director fought back against an order that he retain a lawyer to act on his practice’s behalf, telling a court it was based on “cynically, deliberately and knowingly false evidence”.
Michael Wilson, founder of Michael Wilson & Partners (MWP), told the Federal Court that an order requiring him to obtain an Australian lawyer should “never have been made” and was a breach of the firm’s rights.
Wilson was also prevented from advancing proceedings against his former colleague, John Forster Emmott, until he retained the lawyer.
The proceedings – which have spanned more than 80 judgments in Australian courts – concerned allegations Emmott plotted to form a new partnership, the Temujin Partnership, while working at MWP.
In a decision last month, Justice Cameron Moore noted Wilson has appeared in proceedings from Kazakhstan, which has “led to some practical challenges and has been somewhat unsatisfactory”.
One of those challenges concerned emails that were sent by Emmott but allegedly never received by Wilson.
While Justice Moore made it clear in his previous judgment that “it matters not who is to blame for the email difficulties”, Wilson used his new submissions to claim evidence from Emmott’s legal team about the issue was “cynically, deliberately and knowingly false”.
Wilson also claimed the order to retain a lawyer was “entirely tactical” of Emmott to “once again waste MWP’s time, monies and costs, and to delay his inevitable fate, like that of all of [his] Temujin Partners”.
Justice Moore said Wilson failed to establish Emmott’s side was responsible for the email difficulties, or that they gave false evidence.
Referring to a submission that MWP “is self-represented and chooses to be so”, Justice Moore said it reinforces the need for the order. Under the Federal Court Rules, corporate parties cannot be self-represented.
“However, the fact that MWP asserts that Wilson’s representation is ‘self-representation’ merely reinforces the concern about lack of impartiality referred to in my previous judgment,” Justice Moore said.
No proper basis was found to set aside the order.
In a decision handed down in September, Justices Mark Leeming, Anna Mitchelmore and Stephen Free of the NSW Court of Appeal was referred to the Legal Services Commissioner for conduct that included his relentless pursuit of a “groundless” application to review orders.
In July, Wilson was invited to show cause as to why he should not be referred, but the affidavit he supplied instead only served to prove it was appropriate that material be forwarded to the commissioner.
“The affidavit has served the useful purpose of confirming in our minds that the papers and this court’s judgments should be referred to the Legal Services Commissioner to investigate whether Michael Earl Wilson should continue to be permitted to act as a legal practitioner in this jurisdiction,” the Court of Appeal determined.
The case: Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd v Emmott (No 2) [2025] FCA 1185
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
