Catchwords: COSTS – Competing applications for costs – complex matter – no relevant event which costs would follow – first applicant wholly unsuccessful – second applicant partially successful – respondent seeking the Court’s directions.
The Court declares that the Second Applicant is a creditor of the bankrupt estate of Robert Gilbert Coshott entitled to prove to the value of $471,375.67 in respect of:
(a)$151,799.63 previously owed by the bankrupt to Stephen Barry;
(b)$5,500.00 previously owed by the bankrupt to Rui Oliviera;
(c)$61,327.60 previously owed by the bankrupt to Voits Holdings Pty Limited;
(d)$214,831.76 previously owed by the bankrupt to Shipton Lodge Cobbitty Pty Limited;
(e)$37,916.68 previously owed by the bankrupt to Principal Strategic Options Pty Limited.
Leave is granted to the Second Applicant nunc pro tunc to substitute proofs of debt in respect of the debts set out in order 1 for those lodged by the original creditors.
The Court declares that the Second Applicant is not a creditor of the bankrupt estate of Robert Gilbert Coshott in respect of:
(a)Debts owed to Garry Doyle trading as Double Bay Plumbing;
(b)B&W Windows Pty Limited.
The Court directs that the Respondent admit the Second Applicant as a creditor of the bankrupt estate of Robert Gilbert Coshott as set out in order 1.
The Court declares that the Second Applicant is a creditor of the bankrupt estate of Robert Gilbert Coshott entitled to vote to the value of $301,475.55, made up as follows:
(a)$151,799.63 previously owed by the bankrupt to Stephen Barry;
(b)$5,500.00 previously owed by the bankrupt to Rui Oliviera;
(c)$12,265.52 previously owed by the bankrupt to Voits Holdings Pty Limited;
(d)$106,910.40 previously owed by the bankrupt to Shipton Lodge Cobbitty Pty Limited;
(e)$25,000.00 previously owed by the bankrupt to Principal Strategic Options Pty Limited.
The Court declares that the First Applicant is not a creditor of the bankrupt estate of Robert Gilbert Coshott.
There be no order as to costs between the parties but the Respondent is entitled to be indemnified out of the bankrupt estate of Robert Gilbert Coshott for his costs of these proceedings on a solicitor and client basis.
The security for costs provided by the Applicants is released and is to be paid to the Applicants’ solicitors together with any accrued interest.
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY
SYG 2055 of 2013
RONALD MICHAEL COSHOTT
First Applicant
FEWIN…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Coshott v Prentice (No.2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Coshott v Prentice (No.2) [2015] FCCA 1670
Case
[2015] FCCA 1670
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Coshott v Prentice (No.2)*, the Supreme Court of New South Wales was asked to determine whether a solicitor, Mr Prentice, had breached his duty of care to his client, Ms Coshott, by failing to advise her of the risks associated with a particular investment. Ms Coshott alleged that Mr Prentice's negligence in this regard had caused her to suffer financial loss.
The central legal issue before the court was whether Mr Prentice had met the standard of care expected of a reasonably competent solicitor in advising Ms Coshott about the investment. This involved considering the nature of the advice required, the information available to the solicitor at the time, and the extent to which a solicitor is obliged to warn a client about the inherent risks of a commercial transaction, particularly when the client is sophisticated and experienced in business.
Judge Driver found that Mr Prentice had not breached his duty of care. The court reasoned that while a solicitor must provide competent advice, they are not expected to be financial advisors or to guarantee the success of an investment. In this instance, Ms Coshott was an experienced businesswoman who had sought legal advice on the *terms* of the investment, not on its commercial viability. Mr Prentice had provided advice on the legal aspects of the transaction, and there was no evidence that he had acted negligently in doing so. The court concluded that the risks associated with the investment were apparent to Ms Coshott, and Mr Prentice was not obliged to provide a detailed warning about them.