Login
Fed-up judge makes order to hinder law firm
A law firm has been prevented from easily filing material in the Federal Court after a long history of receiving criticisms, including for once throwing allegations around “like confetti at a wedding”.
Naomi Neilson
In putting to bed a proceeding that has gone on for years, Justice Craig Colvin of the Federal Court made an order to prevent Michael Wilson & Partners from filing any further documents without leave first having been obtained from a case management judge.
In the most recent judgment, the firm made an application to extend the time that would allow it to apply for an order to prevent a registrar’s assessment of costs report from being adopted.
In his affidavit, Wilson claimed he did not receive a copy of the report before 27 November 2024 and he had been “rather ill, indisposed, away from the office and off work since” since the 15th of that month.
While he provided some medical evidence in support of this, Justice Colvin said they all indicated he had recovered by the end of November.
Further, Justice Colvin noted the firm has conducted several proceedings in the court and was aware of the requirements.
“The extent of what may be a reasonable period of time to be allowed to undertake the simple task of raising any reason as to why a referee’s report as to the assessment of a modest amount of legal costs should not be accepted is to be adjudged in that context,” he said.
The firm did not indicate any “substantive reason” why the extension should be granted, and its application was dismissed.
In Justice Angus Stewart’s 3 August 2022 judgment – which concerned Michael Wilson & Partners’ interlocutory application to set aside previous orders – the firm was criticised for considerable delays and Wilson’s “rude, contemptuous” interruption.
In a judgment on the 26th of that month, Justice Stewart said the firm’s interlocutory application was “shockingly poorly prepared”, which meant the respondents were “unreasonably subjected to the expenditure of costs which they should not have had to face”.
The application also sought to “re-argue” points already rejected.
In the same judgment, Justice Stewart noted Michael Wilson & Partners made “scandalous allegations that ought never have been made”, which were irrelevant to the issues and without foundation.
“It suffices to observe that [Wilson] cast allegations around like confetti at a wedding without the least regard for their relevance to the issues at hand or whether they can be substantiated,” he said.
Despite also making “bold statements” about Justice Stewart’s apparent bias, the firm did not identify “any basis” for this.
The case is Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Porter (No 5) [2025] FCA 5.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
