Coshott v Commonwealth Bank of Australia

In the proceedings before Gleeson JA and Simpson AJA, the applicant, Mr Coshott, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the primary court that had summarily dismissed his proceedings against the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. The core of the dispute concerned whether Mr Coshott, who was represented by an employed solicitor, was entitled to recover costs in the proceedings.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether there was a question of principle justifying the grant of leave to appeal, whether the declaration sought by Mr Coshott was hypothetical, and whether there would be an injustice if leave to appeal were refused, particularly in light of unchallenged factual findings made by the primary court.

The court reasoned that the appeal did not raise a question of principle, as the entitlement to costs for a party represented by an employed solicitor was a well-established area of law. Furthermore, the declaration sought was considered hypothetical, as it did not relate to a live controversy. Given these factors, and the absence of any demonstrable injustice, the court concluded that leave to appeal should not be granted.

Consequently, the court extended the time for filing the summons seeking leave to appeal and joined Mr Coshott as the second applicant. Leave was granted to file an amended summons seeking leave to appeal. However, the amended summons seeking leave to appeal was ultimately dismissed. The appeal purportedly commenced by a notice of appeal filed on 30 July 2020 was also dismissed as incompetent, with no order as to costs for the appeal or the related notice of motion.