Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A man who owes more than $100,000 in judgment debts has tried to compel his former law firm to hand over material that would allegedly prove its services were “not done competently”.
Justice Nye Perram of the Federal Court of Australia has set aside four notices to produce served on CharterLaw by former client Paul Michales, who has made a series of allegations about the law firm’s ability to provide services and the quality of those services.
In the underlying proceedings, CharterLaw has applied for orders sequestering Michales’ estate after he failed to comply with a bankruptcy notice to pay the sum of $107,654.53 in judgment debts.
The debts, awarded in March and June 2025, related to work done by CharterLaw for Michales and his company prior to April 2023, and the subsequent registration of two costs assessment certifications.
Michales’ has objected to this on the grounds CharterLaw ceased practising in June 2024, does not hold a practising certificate, and there is currently ”no principal, no insurance, and no trust account”.
In a notice to produce, Michales sought production of evidence of CharterLaw’s professional indemnity insurance and the principal’s practising certificate for the period between 2019 and 2025.
Justice Perram said he understood from the notice that Michales is relying on the fact that CharterLaw was not a law practice when the costs certificates were issued, registered, or became judgment debts. As a result, Michales claimed CharterLaw does not have the capacity to sue.
Given the fact of CharterLaw ceasing to practise is admitted, Justice Perram was not satisfied that the production of the material sought by the notice would advance Michales’ case in the underlying proceedings.
While it may have been relevant to the contention that CharterLaw was not lawfully practising during the time it acted for Michales, that contention does not appear in his notice of grounds of opposition.
In three other notices, Michales has sought documents he claims will show the work done by CharterLaw was “not done competently”.
While Justice Perram accepted that a solicitor cannot charge for work that was not done competently, Michales does not suggest the fees were not due on that basis in his grounds of opposition.
Michales has filed an interlocutory application to amend his notice of grounds of opposition to raise negligent legal advice, but that application has yet to be determined, Justice Perram added.
If there were an issue, Justice Perram noted Michales’ allegations of negligent work had been made to the original costs assessor and to a review panel, meaning it had already “been determined adversely to him … and how now merged in the two judgments against him”.
Citation: CharterLaw Legal Pty Limited v Michales (Notice to Produce) [2026] FCA 1002.
