Coshott v Coshott

Case [2013] FCA 156


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Coshott v Coshott [2013] FCA 156

Citation: Coshott v Coshott [2013] FCA 156
Parties: JAMES COSHOTT and LJILJANA COSHOTT v ROBERT GILBERT COSHOTT and JOHN CHRISTOPHER BURKE; JOHN CHRISTOPHER BURKE AS TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF ROBERT GILBERT COSHOTT, A BANKRUPT; JAMES COSHOTT, LJILJANA COSHOTT, ROBERT GILBERT COSHOTT and SCHILOTSZKY'S NOMINEE COMPANY PTY LIMITED
File number: NSD 1412 of 2009
Judge: BUCHANAN J
Date of judgment: 25 February 2013
Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Date of hearing: 25 February 2013
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 3
Counsel for the Applicants: The First Applicant appeared in person for the Applicants
Counsel for the First Respondent: The First Respondent appeared in person
Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr J Johnson
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Sally Nash & Co Lawyers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1412 of 2009

BETWEEN:

JAMES COSHOTT
First Applicant

LJILJANA COSHOTT
Second Applicant

ROBERT GILBERT COSHOTT
First Respondent

JOHN CHRISTOPHER BURKE
Second Respondent

JOHN CHRISTOPHER BURKE AS TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF ROBERT GILBERT COSHOTT, A BANKRUPT
Cross-Claimant

AND:

JAMES COSHOTT
First Cross-Respondent

LJILJANA COSHOTT
Second Cross-Respondent

ROBERT GILBERT COSHOTT
Third Cross-Respondent

SCHILOTSZKY'S NOMINEE COMPANY PTY LIMITED
Fourth Cross-Respondent

JUDGE:

BUCHANAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

25 FEBRUARY 2013

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Official Trustee be substituted for John Christopher Burke as second respondent and cross-claimant in proceedings NSD 1412 of 2009. 

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

2.The solicitors for the former trustee notify the Official Trustee, within three working days, of the change of party in those proceedings. 

3.The matter be listed for further directions at 9:30 am on 8 March 2013.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1412 of 2009

BETWEEN:

JAMES COSHOTT
First Applicant

LJILJANA COSHOTT
Second Applicant

ROBERT GILBERT COSHOTT
First Respondent

JOHN CHRISTOPHER BURKE
Second Respondent

JOHN CHRISTOPHER BURKE AS TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF ROBERT GILBERT COSHOTT, A BANKRUPT
Cross-Claimant

AND:

JAMES COSHOTT
First Cross-Respondent

LJILJANA COSHOTT
Second Cross-Respondent

ROBERT GILBERT COSHOTT
Third Cross-Respondent

SCHILOTSZKY'S NOMINEE COMPANY PTY LIMITED
Fourth Cross-Respondent

JUDGE:

BUCHANAN J

DATE:

25 FEBRUARY 2013

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. Earlier this morning, I made orders the effect of which was to accept the resignation of the second respondent/cross-claimant as trustee of the bankrupt estate of the first respondent/third cross-respondent.  I did not appoint another trustee in substitution.  The effect of s 160 of the Bankruptcy Act 1996 (Cth) is that the Official Trustee is, by force of that section, now the trustee of the estate.  I order that the Official Trustee be substituted for John Christopher Burke as second respondent and cross-claimant in proceedings NSD 1412 of 2009. 

  2. I direct that the solicitors for the former trustee notify the Official Trustee, within three working days, of the change of party in those proceedings. 

  3. I list that matter for further directions at 9:30 am on 8 March 2013.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Buchanan.

Associate:

Dated:       1 March 2013

Details
AGLC
Coshott v Coshott [2013] FCA 156
Case
[2013] FCA 156
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Coshott v Coshott involved a dispute over the bankruptcy proceedings of Robert Gilbert Coshott. The applicants, James Coshott and Ljilja Coshott, brought an application before the Federal Court of Australia, arguing that the second respondent, John Christopher Burke, had resigned as trustee of the bankrupt estate of the first respondent. The applicants sought an order for the Official Trustee to be substituted as the trustee of the bankrupt estate. The first respondent, Robert Gilbert Coshott, and the second respondent, John Christopher Burke, appeared in person for themselves, while the second respondent was represented by Mr J Johnson, with Sally Nash & Co Lawyers acting as solicitors. The applicants sought to have the Official Trustee substituted for John Christopher Burke as the second respondent and cross-claimant in the proceedings, as well as directions for the matter to proceed further.

The legal issue before the court was whether the resignation of the second respondent as trustee of the bankrupt estate necessitated the substitution of the Official Trustee in his place. This was determined by examining the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), which governs the appointment and resignation of trustees in bankruptcy matters. Specifically, section 160 of the Act provides that upon the resignation of a trustee, the Official Trustee automatically becomes the trustee of the estate, unless another trustee is appointed in substitution.

Justice Buchanan, who presided over the case, found that the resignation of the second respondent indeed necessitated the substitution of the Official Trustee as the trustee of the bankrupt estate. The judge accepted the resignation and ordered that the Official Trustee be substituted for John Christopher Burke as the second respondent and cross-claimant in the proceedings. The judge also directed that the solicitors for the former trustee notify the Official Trustee of the change of party within three working days and listed the matter for further directions on 8 March 2013.

In summary, the court ruled that the resignation of the second respondent as trustee of the bankrupt estate of the first respondent resulted in the automatic substitution of the Official Trustee as the new trustee. The court made an order to this effect and directed the necessary notifications and listing of the matter for further directions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.