FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Coshott v Prentice (No 3) [2019] FCA 1497
File number: NSD 786 of 2015 Judge: LEE J Date of judgment: 9 September 2019 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for adoption of referee report
COSTS – referee inquiry and report on numerous countervailing costs orders in multiple proceedings without descending into the detail of a taxation – objection taken to referee’s decision not to apply global discount – referee alleged not to have considered the issues of quantum and proportion together – no error of principle or manifest unreasonableness such that the report should be rejected – report adopted in full
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37P, 54A
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 28, div 28.6
Cases cited: Chocolate Factory Apartments v Westpoint Finance [2005] NSWSC 784
Date of hearing: 9 September 2019 Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 20 Counsel for the Applicants: Mr D Smith Solicitor for the Applicants: Comino Prassas Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J T Johnson Solicitor for the Respondent: O’Neill Partners Commercial Lawyers Counsel for Ms Parker and Ms Collins: Ms M Castle Counsel for the Trustees for Sale: Mr S Mullette ORDERS
NSD 786 of 2015 BETWEEN: RONALD MICHAEL COSHOTT
First Applicant
FEWIN PTY LIMITED
Second Applicant
AND: MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE
Respondent
JUDGE:
LEE J
DATE OF ORDER:
9 SEPTEMBER 2019
THE COURT NOTES:
A.THE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES AND MICHELLE LENA PARKER, CHRISTINA MAREE COLLINS, LJILJANA COSHOTT, JAMES COSHOTT, ROBERT GILBERT COSHOTT, THE OFFCIAL TRUSTEE IN BAKRUPTCY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL PETROVIC LENIN (DECEASED), NICHOLAS CROUCH AND SHABNAM AMIRBEAGGI AS TRUSTEES FOR SALE OF PROPERTY OF 1 BUNYULA ROAD BELLEVUE HILL, AND MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF ROBERT GILBERT COSHOTT (A DISCHARGED BANKRUPT) THAT BY REASON OF THE ADOPTION OF THE REFEREE REPORT BELOW THE AMOUNTS PAYABLE FOR THE COSTS ORDERS IDENTIFIED IN THE SCHEDULE TO THE ORDERS OF 21 JUNE 2019 HAVE BEEN QUANTIFIED (OTHER THAN IN NSD 2014/2016, WHICH HAS BEEN SEPERATELY QUANTIFIED) (RELEVANT COSTS ORDERS) AND NO FURTHER QUANTIFICATION OF THE RELEVANT COSTS ORDERS COSTS IS TO OCCUR AND THE AMOUNT PAYABLE PURSUANT TO THE RELEVANT COSTS ORDERS IS AS QUANTIFIED UPON THE ADOPTION OF THE REFEREE REPORT;
B.THE UNDERTAKING OF MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE BY HIS COUNSEL THAT HE WILL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS (TO THE EXTENT STEPS ARE LAWFULLY AVAILABLE TO HIM) TO MAKE A CLAIM FOR AN INPUT TAX CREDIT IN RESPECT OF COSTS PAYBALE TO HIM PURSUANT TO THE RELEVANT COSTS ORDERS AND, IF SUCH AN INPUT TAX CREDIT IS ACCEPTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION, HE WILL PROIDE A REFUND OF SUCH AMOUNT TO THE PARTY HAVING THE BURDEN OF PAYING SUCH AMOUNT WITHIN 10 DAYS OF ANY SUCH DECISION BEING COMMUNICATED TO HIM BY THE COMMISIONER…
Continue reading Coshott v Prentice (No 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Coshott v Prentice (No 3) [2019] FCA 1497
- Case
- [2019] FCA 1497
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether there was any error of principle or manifest unreasonableness in the referee's approach to the costs orders that would warrant rejecting the report. Specifically, the court examined whether the referee had adequately considered the issues of quantum and proportion together when deciding not to apply a global discount. The respondents argued that the referee failed to consider these issues adequately, leading to an objection to the referee's decision.
In delivering the judgment, the court held that the referee's report did not exhibit any error of principle or manifest unreasonableness. The court found that the referee had considered the issues of quantum and proportion together and had provided adequate reasoning for not applying a global discount. Consequently, the court adopted the referee's report in its entirety, dismissing the respondents' objections. This decision highlighted the importance of ensuring that a referee's report is carefully scrutinised for any procedural or substantive errors before being adopted by the court.
The final orders of the court were that the referee's report be adopted in full, and the respondents' objections to the costs orders were dismissed. This outcome underscored the principle that a referee's report should be adopted unless there are clear grounds to reject it, reflecting the court's respect for the referee's expertise and detailed analysis in complex cost matters.
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.