//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2009] NSWSC 548
procedural. The proceedings were adjourned to 23 June 2009 so the defendants could have a reasonable opportunity to examine materials provided by the plaintiff and potentially further materials following the...
The Court gave the defendants time to review documents connected with a prior United Kingdom arbitration, including material whose redactions the Court was to examine. It did not accept that counsel should be barred from appearing simply because they had been involved in that arbitration. The case was adjourned to 23 June 2009.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
1,913 words · generated 30/09/2026
The judgment is an ex tempore interlocutory ruling by Einstein J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division, Commercial List. It arose at the start of a trial listed for six weeks. The defendants' notice of motion, filed on 11 June 2009, sought several orders, including a stay until at least one month after specified documents had been served (para 1).
A central part of the dispute concerned material from a United Kingdom arbitration between the plaintiff, Michael Wilson & Partners Limited, and Mr J F Emmott. That arbitration began on 10 November 2008 and apparently concluded in late February 2009, but no decision had been given by the time of the motion (para 4). Mr Emmott was not a party to the New South Wales proceedings, but was apparently proposed as a defence witness, and an affidavit from him had been served on the plaintiff. The defendants had also served affidavits from Mr Nicholls, Mr Schoonbrood and Mr Sinclair, who were apparently witnesses in the arbitration (para 5).
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
The defendants contended that a large volume of arbitration-related material had reached them only recently. They sought unredacted material and time to absorb the documents before the trial proceeded (para 6). The history of confidentiality and disclosure was contested and involved correspondence over an extended period. The Court did not decide whether the arbitration materials should previously have been discovered, or to what extent they should have been (paras 7-10). It also noted the plaintiff's contention that documents had been available for inspection at a law firm in Almaty, but expressly recorded that this contention was not supported by evidence before the Court and remained unresolved (para 9).
During argument, the parties made some accommodations. Material provided by the plaintiff included witness evidence, transcripts, pleadings, expert reports, submissions, discovery and bundles. Some was redacted, and some was made available only on a lawyers-eyes-only basis. The plaintiff declined to provide awards, judgments or orders, and disputed the relevance of documents concerning corporate officers, shareholders and dealings. The Court reserved to itself decisions about relevance and the treatment of the redacted material (para 13).
A separate issue concerned letters sent on 12 June 2009 by PricewaterhouseCoopers to defence counsel and solicitors. PWC said it had been appointed investigative accountant of Temujin Group entities under an order of the High Court of the British Virgin Islands. It requested engagement documents, invoices, payment information and details of any outstanding balance (paras 14-16). Defence counsel sought an opportunity to assess their positions, including by potentially seeking advice from the NSW Bar Association's ethics committee (para 17). The Court said counsel must have a proper opportunity to take advice and some time to do so (para 18).
The defendants also sought an order restraining the plaintiff from retaining Mr Carney and other people associated with the arbitration or access to its documents (para 20). The Court found no basis for that restraint. The case was adjourned to 23 June 2009 so the material could be examined and the matter revisited (paras 24-25).
The ruling distinguishes between two concerns: the defendants' practical opportunity to examine material and their request to exclude particular counsel.
On the documents, the Court recognised a reasonable examination period as warranted. The material had arrived in stages and included documents subject to redactions or restricted access. The Court itself was to assess the relevance of material sought by notice to produce and determine the fate of material supplied on a lawyers-eyes-only basis (para 13). The Court's examination could result in further material being made available. In those circumstances, it accepted that the defendants needed a period to review what had been produced and what might yet be produced (para 25).
The ruling was measured. It did not decide that all arbitration documents were discoverable, that the plaintiff had breached a disclosure obligation, or that the defendants were entitled to every unredacted document. Paragraph 10 expressly frames the Court's overview as being without deciding whether, or to what extent, the requested materials should have been discovered. Questions about costs associated with disclosure were also left open (para 9).
On counsel, the Court applied the fair-trial concern but did not treat that general principle as enough to justify the requested exclusion. The defendants relied on authorities, including Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378, and an article by Chief Justice Spigelman (para 22). The judgment does not set out a detailed account of those sources. Einstein J stated that fair trial is a basic tenet of the administration of justice and that circumstances must be carefully examined where a party's fair-trial rights may be in jeopardy (para 23). However, the fact that Mr Carney acted in the arbitration and was retained in the NSW proceedings was not shown to have sufficient importance to require his removal, or the removal of his leader, from the bar table (para 24).
The PWC correspondence was dealt with separately and briefly. The Court accepted that defence counsel needed time to consider their positions and obtain any advice they deemed fit (para 18). It did not decide that the letters amounted to interference with the proceedings. It recorded that no application had been made on that point and that the matter might be investigated in due course (para 19).
The judgment states a general procedural principle rather than announcing a new rule. Before this interlocutory ruling, the relevant framework, as expressed in the judgment, was that the Court must pay particular regard to a fair trial and assess whether the circumstances put that right in jeopardy (para 23). The Court referred to Walton v Gardiner and Chief Justice Spigelman's article as authorities cited by the defendants, but the judgment does not reproduce their reasoning or specify which propositions it adopted from them (para 22).
The judgment describes the Court as having a range of powers where a fair trial is not assured, including staying or dismissing proceedings or otherwise acting to address the problem (para 23). It does not formulate a comprehensive test for exercising those powers, nor does it decide that the trial here was unfair. Instead, it uses the fair-trial principle to assess the particular applications before it.
After the ruling, the immediate procedural position was that the defendants would have time to examine the materials and the case would return on 23 June 2009 (para 25). The ruling did not determine the ultimate disclosure disputes, the admissibility of the arbitration material, the costs of disclosure, or whether any later application concerning the PWC letters would succeed. Nothing in the supplied judgment identifies a change to the general law.
At paragraph 23, Einstein J states: “the Court must pay particular regard to ensuring that parties to litigation receive a fair trial.” In plain English, a court must take seriously whether each side has a proper opportunity to participate in the proceeding. The judgment says the issue requires attention to the circumstances of each case, rather than automatic application of a single outcome.
Paragraph 23 also says that where the fair-trial right is not assured, the Court has powers it may exercise, including to stay or dismiss proceedings “or otherwise”. This describes a range of possible court responses. It is not a finding that any particular response was required here.
At paragraph 24, the Court rejects the suggested basis for excluding Mr Carney. His prior role in the arbitration and current retainer in the NSW proceedings had not been shown to be a matter of sufficient importance to require his removal or the removal of his leader. In plain English, the fact of prior involvement alone did not establish the case for barring those counsel from appearing.
Paragraph 25 gives the operative conclusion: the defendants had made good their entitlement to “a period of time” to examine the material already produced and material that might follow the Court's examination of redactions. The practical consequence was an adjournment to 23 June 2009, when the matter would be revisited. The paragraph does not specify a one-month adjournment; it records the date to which the proceedings were adjourned.
The judgment is relevant to procedural situations where a party receives a significant body of material shortly before or during a trial and says that a reasonable opportunity to examine it is needed. Its factual setting included late production, redactions, restrictions on access, and unresolved questions about relevance and confidentiality (paras 6-13). The Court's response was to adjourn the matter while the examination and document issues were addressed (para 25).
The decision may also be relevant where a party seeks to restrain opposing counsel because of counsel's prior involvement in related proceedings or access to related documents. On these facts, the Court did not find the prior retainer in the arbitration sufficient to support the restraint sought (paras 20-24). The judgment does not establish that prior involvement can never justify a restraint. It addresses the application before it and says the asserted fact had not been shown to be sufficiently important in this case.
A further procedural situation concerns pressure on counsel arising from third-party requests for information during a trial. The Court recognised time for defence counsel to consider their position in response to PWC's correspondence (paras 14-18). It did not decide whether the correspondence was improper or what consequence it might have for the proceedings.
The supplied judgment contains no information about later judicial treatment of this decision. It identifies Walton v Gardiner as an authority cited by the defendants, but does not identify any later case that applied, followed, distinguished, or otherwise considered Michael Wilson and Partners Limited v Nicholls.
Accordingly, later treatment cannot be assessed from this source alone. The judgment's citation of Walton v Gardiner at paragraph 22 should not be confused with later treatment of the 2009 decision itself. The reasons do not set out the High Court decision's detailed propositions, so a fuller account of the relationship between the cases would require the text of the cited authority and relevant later judgments.
The judgment leaves several matters unresolved. First, it does not determine whether the UK arbitration documents should have been discovered, or the extent of any obligation to produce them (para 10). Second, it does not finally determine the relevance of the documents requested concerning shareholders, directors, officers and dealings, or the treatment of the redacted and lawyers-eyes-only materials (para 13).
Third, questions about the costs associated with disclosure were left open (para 9). The plaintiff's contention that documents had been available for inspection at a law firm in Almaty was not supported by evidence before the Court and remained inchoate (para 9). Fourth, the Court did not decide whether the PWC communications were an attempt to interfere with the regular determination of the proceedings. It noted that no application had been made concerning that issue (para 19).
Finally, the decision does not explain what occurred when the matter returned on 23 June 2009, whether further material was ordered to be produced, or whether the fair-trial issue arose again. Those matters are outside the supplied judgment.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.
CITATION : Michael Wilson and Partners Limited v Robert Colin Nicholls & Ors [2009] NSWSC 548
HEARING DATE(S) : 15/06/09 JURISDICTION : Equity Division Commercial List
CATCHWORDS : Natural Justice - Entitlement of parties to fair trial
CASES CITED : Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378
TEXTS CITED : 'The truth can cost too much: The principle of a fair trial' Chief Justice Spigelman, Australian Law Journal (2004) 78 ALJ 29
Michael Wilson & Partners (Plaintiff) Robert Colin Nicholls (First Defendant) David Ross Slater (Second Defendant) PARTIES : Temujin Services Limited (Third Defendant) Temujin International Limited (Fourth Defendant) Temujin International FZE (Fifth Defendant) Shaikenov & Partners, LLP (Sixth Defendant) Scoulton Holdings Limited (Seventh Defendant)
Mr M Walton SC, Mr J Carney (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : Mr G McGrath, Mr A Fox , Mr S Adair (First Defendant) Mr G Lindsay SC, Mr A Fox (Second to Fifth Defendants)
SOLICITORS : Clayton Utz (Plaintiff) Henry Davis York (First to Fifth Defendants)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION COMMERCIAL LIST
50151/06 Michael Wilson & Partners v Robert Colin Nicholls & Ors JUDGMENT The defendants notice of motion 1 At the commencement of the first day of these proceedings [currently fixed for six weeks] the defendants by notice of motion filed on the 11 June 2009 sought a number of orders including an order that the proceedings be stayed until the expiry of a period not less than one month after service upon them of particular documents. 2 A deal of the first day was taken up with the cross contentions in relation to the notice of motion and a decision was reserved. 3 Mr Lindsay SC put the motion on a number of bases, the first a positive basis of the need for a fair trial and the second, a negative basis, namely an allegation of an abuse of process of the Court. The documentary based basis 4 A deal of the essential backdrop underpinning a number of the defendant's submissions involves an arbitration heard in the United Kingdom which commenced on 10 November 2008 and apparently concluded in late February 2009 [a 20 day arbitration]. That was an arbitration between Mr J F Emmott and the plaintiff in these present proceedings. Apparently no decision has yet been given in that arbitration. 5 Although Mr Emmott is not a party to the present New South Wales proceedings, he is apparently currently listed on the defendants' side of the record as proposed to give evidence: apparently an affidavit of his has been served on the plaintiffs. Indeed the Court has been informed that the defendants have served affidavits of Mr Nicholls, Mr Schoonbrood and Mr Sinclair, all of whom were apparently witnesses in the United Kingdom arbitration. The plaintiffs have sought to thumbnail sketch those affidavits as 'simply re-badged affidavits', which I understand is to suggest that they contain much of the same material as had been adduced during the arbitration. 6 Whilst there are a number of other matters raised by the defendants in support of their notice of motion, a considerable part of the notice of motion involves the contention that in very recent times they have been flooded with an enormous volume of material generally in the shape of that emanating from the above described arbitration. They claim that some of that material, in so far as constituting redacted material, must be supplied in an un-redacted form and that they require a proper period of time in which to absorb this material before being in a position to continue with the final hearing. 7 It is fair to observe that over a considerable period of time the plaintiffs took the position that the arbitration was subject to a confidentiality regime and that the current plaintiff was not in a position to provide the current defendants with any information in relation to the arbitration. There is considerable correspondence now before the court running from approximately November 2007 up to very recent times which appears to disclose the respective positions taken by the parties. 8 Ultimately it appears that Mr Emmott, on certain conditions, had proposed to waive confidentiality but the whole picture appears to have only slowly evolved and indeed there is correspondence as late as June 2009 from Holman Fenwick Willan suggesting that as at early June 2009 no agreement had been reached regarding the use in other proceedings of documents disclosed in the UK arbitration. 9 Ultimately many questions may arise in relation to costs of and occasioned by one or both of the parties in relation to the whole of the question of the disclosure of the documents utilised in the UK arbitration. One only parameter of the exercise may involve whether or not as the plaintiff claims:
i. a large volume of documents comprising the confidential documents discovered by the plaintiff had been made available for the first to fifth defendants' to inspect at a law firm [Grata law Firm] in Almaty in accordance with a confidentiality regime agreed between the parties for well over a year.
ii. the first to fifth defendants had not attended that law firm to inspect any of those documents at any time during that period.
[This contention was not supported by any evidence before the Court and the matter remains inchoate] 10 On an overview basis [but without deciding whether or not the UK arbitration materials sought by the defendants were or were not [or to what extent] materials which at any stage before or during or after the hearing of the arbitration should have been discovered, a reading of the correspondence suggests that both parties to this present litigation had an interest in clarifying that question and that the defendants in particular, had for a long time pursued the plaintiff to provide those documents as on discovery. 11 It is also appears from the correspondence that there was a reasonably lengthy gap between the communication dated 13 November 2007 from Lane and Partners, the plaintiffs UK solicitors to their UK counterparts, apparently being picked up again approximately May 2009. Accommodation reached during the argument 12 Ultimately as the transcript will record, a deal of accommodation came forward during the hearing of the motion. In certain respects the Court was able to make clear that it would endeavour to determine matters which still separated the parties. 13 The position which resulted seems to be as follows:
i. On 9 June 2009 the defendants served a notice to produce on the plaintiffs requiring the production of two classes of document: (a) the first constituting all documents of record recording or relating to the arbitration in the UK;
(b) the second consisting of documents recording or referring to particulars of certain shareholders, directors and officers over a particular period of time in respect of nominate corporations. ii. The plaintiff has now delivered [in DVD form] the following documents to the defendants: On 12 June :
witness statement of Mr Wilson (redacted] exhibit to witness statement of Mr Wilson (redacted) transcripts of cross-examination of Mr Wilson (days 3 -6 and 8 redacted)
pleadings other witness statements of evidence read at the hearing together with exhibits expert reports, together with exhibits transcript (with the exception of days 3 to 6 and 8 which were provided in redacted form on 12 June 2009) opening and closing submissions of the parties Mr Emmett's discovery with the exception of document 17 on his list of documents (to be provided shortly) transaction bundles the core bundle used that the UK arbitral proceeding
iii. The plaintiff has refused to provide awards, judgments or orders
iv. The plaintiff has refused on relevance grounds to provide any of the documents sought by the notice to produce in relation to directors, shareholders and dealings;
v. The Court has made clear that it will decide questions of relevance and that the documents called for in paragraph 2 of the defendants notice to produce are to be made available to the Court forthwith;
vi. The Court will determine the relevance of the so-called 'redacted material' so that the fate of so much of the DVD as was provided on a 'lawyers eyes only' basis will rest with the Court. The appointment of the Investigative Accountant of Temujin Group Entities 14 There is evidence before the Court that on 12 June 2009 letters emanated from PriceWaterhouseCoopers to each of the defendants' barristers clerks and to the defendants' solicitors Henry Davis York. 15 In these communications PriceWaterhouseCoopers advised that they had been appointed as the investigative accountant of the Temujin Group Entities pursuant to an order made in the High Court of the British Virgin Islands. A copy of the orders was enclosed. 16 The correspondence from PriceWaterhouseCoopers advised that in order for that firm to fulfil its duties and obligations, the recipients of the letters were required to provide to PriceWaterhouseCoopers by return the following documents:
i. copies of the relevant engagement letter/terms of appointment with either or both of the companies Temujin International Ltd and Temujin Services Ltd;
ii. copies of all invoices issued by the recipients of the letters to either or both of those entities, or to anyone else on their behalf (including Messrs Nicholls and Slater personally), including any fee notes which they had received from any of Messrs Lindsay SC, Gleeson SC, McGrath, Fox and Shepherd;
iii. details of all and any payments that they had received, whether directly or indirectly, in full or partial settlement of their invoices, including details of which persons or entities actually made payment to them;
iv. details of the current balance, if any outstanding. 17 As I understand the position, the central burden of Mr Lindsay's address [speaking for himself and the other of the defendant's counsel at the bar table] concerning these communications was that they each required a proper opportunity to assess their own positions: probably by approaching the ethics committee of the New South Wales bar Association. There were some concerns, as I understood it concerning their continued retainer. 18 This matter can be shortly dealt with by the Court. Quite obviously each of the defendant's counsel must have a proper opportunity to take such advice as they deem fit and must be afforded some time in which to do so. In the reasons which follow that time will be accommodated. 19 It was suggested by Mr Lindsay that one of the things which needed to be looked at was whether or not these letters constituted an attempt by the plaintiff to interfere with the regular determination of these proceedings. There being no applications in that regard my understanding was that that matter in due course be subject of investigation. The position concerning the plaintiff's retainer of Mr Carney of Junior Counsel. 20 The second order pursued by the defendants notice of motion [following the first order seeking a stay of the proceedings], was in the following terms:
An order that, pending expiry of such time, the plaintiff, by itself its servants and agents, be restrained from retaining for the purpose of the trial or any other step in the proceedings, Mr Carney or any other person retained by the plaintiff in or for the purpose of the conduct of the UK Arbitration and any person (including Mr Walton) who has had access to the documents of record referred to in [order 1]. 21 There is no basis for the contention that Mr Carney or any of the other persons including Mr Walton [identified in order 2 of the defendants notice of motion] should be restrained from being retained for the purposes of the trial. 22 The defendants have cited a number of authorities [including Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378 at 392-393 and 394-395; and an article by Chief Justice Spigelman 'The truth can cost too much: The principle of a fair trial' Australian Law Journal (2004) 78 ALJ 29 at 30-31, 33 n30, 34 n34 and 35. 23 Naturally as a basic tenet of the administration of Justice, the Court must pay particular regard to ensuring that parties to litigation receive a fair trial. And of course each circumstance must be carefully examined in order to determine whether or not, for whatever reason, the parameters underpinning the rights of the party to a fair trial may have been put in jeopardy. Clearly in any circumstances where that fundamental right is not assured, the Court has a bevy of powers which it may exercise either to stay the proceedings entirely or to dismiss them or otherwise. 24 That having been said, the mere fact that Mr Carney was retained by the plaintiff during the United Kingdom arbitration and is now retained in the New South Wales proceedings has not been shown to be an integer of such earth shattering importance that either he or his leader must be removed from the bar table at all, or until the expiration of the time delimited in paragraph 1 of the defendants notice of motion. The defendants have made good their entitlement to have a reasonable opportunity to examine the materials which have come forward from the plaintiff 25 In my view the defendants have made good their entitlement to have a period of time in which to examine the materials which have come forward from the plaintiff and which may well come forward following my examination of the redacted materials. The proceedings will be adjourned to 23 June 2009 on which date the matter will be revisited. ***********
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Michael Wilson and Partners Limited
Robert Colin Nicholls & Ors
(1993) 177 CLR 378
The proceedings were adjourned to 23 June 2009 so the defendants could have a reasonable opportunity to examine materials provided by the plaintiff and potentially further materials following the Court's examination of redacted documents. The requested restraint on Mr Carney and other identified persons was not supported by a sufficient basis.