Michael Meek J was appointed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales in late 2022 after more than two decades at the equity bar. 138 published judgments since. No decision overturned on appeal. Several already cited as authority by the Court of Appeal.
“When you’d buy vinyl, you’d have this lovely-sized object with a lovely picture, and you’d read the lyrics and usually there was something artistic that went with it.”
– a Kate Bush quote that featured in Cox v Zammar [2026] NSWSC 118 at [1]. A debt dispute between vinyl collectors.
As you might already know, his Honour reads widely and will engage with whatever context the case presents. If your matter has an unusual background, present it.
The numbers
Family provision (41), equity (28), property (22), procedure (19), contract (9). All at first instance. 76 allowed, 37 dismissed. Average judgment length: 230 paragraphs. Median: 142. Contested trials routinely exceed 800.
His background shapes his bench
Before being elevated to the bench, Meek J had 100 appearances from 1999 to 2022 in equity, family provision, and property. Junior to Brereton SC (later Brereton JA) in several early matters. This shows on the bench: Brereton J is his most-cited first-instance authority (51 distinct decisions). His most-cited appellate authority is Basten JA (62 decisions), whose family provision costs jurisprudence he applies regularly.
Practitioner shortcomings
Four patterns recur.
Failing to respond to correspondence. In Lea v Lea [2024] NSWSC 1587 at [51], after solicitors ignored an email flagging revised relief:
“…if the first defendant had informed the plaintiff of his position even a week earlier, such costs could have been largely avoided.”
Costs ordered.
Failing to alert the court to a problem. In Grigor v Stock [2025] NSWSC 232 at [37]-[43], solicitors on both sides knew a dispute was preventing finalisation of orders. Nobody told the court. The s 56 duty to assist “endures to the final conclusion of the proceedings.”
Arriving at a hearing with foreseeable procedural steps undone. In Collins v Hawkes [2025] NSWSC 316 at [28]:
“The issue regarding location and service should have been raised by the legal practitioners at the pre-trial directions listing before me.”
The hearing had to be adjourned part-heard.
Running up disproportionate costs. In Lord v Craig [2026] NSWSC 17 at [240], he found the plaintiff’s costs were “already to some degree disproportionate.” In Guildford Montessori Kindergarten v Wehbe [2025] NSWSC 145 at [13]: practitioners should engage in “very deep reflection” on whether their s 56 obligations have been met.
Written submissions are a requirement
He directs written submissions in virtually every contested matter, assigns shorthand labels (POS, PCS, DS, TS1), and references them throughout the judgment. In Cox v Zammar [2026] NSWSC 118 at [48], he noted the defendant “did not provide any written submissions.” The contrast with the plaintiff, who had filed in accordance with directions, is visible in the judgment.
Notice of Claim service in family provision
A recurring concern. In Evans v Evans [2025] NSWSC 1263 at [6], settlement documentation lacked proof of service on three prior spouses. In Collins v Hawkes [2025] at [28], a hearing commenced without service on a potential claimant. In Bowers v Matthews [2024] NSWSC 1353, he wrote an extended treatment of service on incapacitated persons because practitioners “do not have uniform approaches.”
Have service completed before the pre-trial directions stage.
Prepare a family tree diagram. He has asked for one more than once.
Costs proportionality in small estates
Lord v Craig [2026] NSWSC 17 at [179]:
“In cases of very small estates such as this one where the value of the estate is no more than say $100,000 to $150,000, parties and practitioners cannot sensibly incur costs to mediation regularly in the order of $35,000 to $50,000 on each side. Forensic moderation is required.”
He made what appears to be the first interlocutory costs-capping order in a pure family provision claim in the Supreme Court. He may raise proportionality of his own motion.
If you have a conditional costs agreement with an uplift, he will want to know about it (Lord v Craig at [42]).
Offer of comp versus Calderbank
Mills v Dodds (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 44 contains a detailed treatment of both regimes. He distinguishes the costs consequences and explains why a non-OC offer does not give a prima facie entitlement to indemnity costs. Be clear about which regime you are invoking and why.
He fills gaps in the authorities
When he identifies an unsettled point, he writes it up. Bowers v Matthews (180 paragraphs on settlement followed by applicant death). Little v Little (burden of provision traced from the 1977 Law Reform Commission report to the present). Lord v Craig (interlocutory costs capping).
If your case raises a novel question, the judgment will be longer than you expected. Brief your client on costs accordingly.
Read his prior decisions
He cites his own judgments consistently: Horn v GA & RG Horn Pty Ltd (No 2) on costs, Bear v Bear on rectification, Gerstenmeier v Gerstenmeier on practitioner duties, Reeves v Reeves on rectification.
When he has addressed a point before, he refers back rather than restating it. Counsel who are unaware of his earlier decision on the relevant issue will be working against the grain.
Chambers communications
No ex parte communications: Julie v John [2025] at [59], citing Central Coast Animal Care Facility v Wyatt [2022] NSWSC 1373. But solicitors can and should write to his Associate, copied to all parties, to flag a dispute: Grigor v Stock at [44]-[45]. Silence when there is a problem is itself a breach of the s 56 duty.
The openings
Cox v Zammar opens with footnoted references to Simon Le Bon, Kate Bush, Stranger Things, and Neil Young on vinyl records. The case was a debt dispute between two men who met through vinyl collecting on Facebook Marketplace. Mackie v Tedesco opens with C.S. Lewis’s A Grief Observed and traces the etymology of the deceased’s name through Italian, English, and Hebrew. An urgent burial dispute, decided in a day. McBride v McBride traces prisoner standing back to 1788, citing Professor Kercher on how the judge-advocate David Collins ignored the rule of felony attaint in a penal colony.
Each opening serves the factual findings that follow. The vinyl records explain why the plaintiff trusted the defendant. The etymology acknowledges the gravity of a funeral dispute. The convict history explains why the standing question is harder than it looks. He reads widely and will engage with whatever context the case presents. If your matter has an unusual background, present it
Jake McKinley notes that this article is written for the purpose of providing generalised information and not to provide specialised legal advice. If you require qualified legal advice on anything mentioned in this article, our experienced team of solicitors at Jake McKinley are here to help. Please get in touch with us on 02 9232 8033 today to make an enquiry.
Article Written by Jacob Carswell-Doherty, Principal
