Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Coshott v Prentice [2013] FCA 1196 Citation: Coshott v Prentice [2013] FCA 1196
Parties: LJILJANA COSHOTT and SCHLOTZKY'S NOMINEE COMPANY PTY LIMITED v MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE (IN HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF ROBERT GILBERT COSHOTT, A BANKRUPT), ROBERT GILBERT COSHOTT, A BANKRUPT and JAMES COSHOTT
File number: NSD 2016 of 2013
Parties: FEWIN PTY LIMITED ACN 051 132 453 v MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE (IN HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF ROBERT GILBERT COSHOTT, A BANKRUPT), LJILJANA COSHOTT
File number: NSD 2140 of 2013
Judge: PERRY J
Date of judgment: 14 November 2013
Catchwords: COSTS – whether to be assessed on an indemnity basis – discussion of principles governing the award of indemnity costs
Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 30 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M, 37N, 43 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 36.08
Cases cited: Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225 Coshott v Coshott [2013] FCA 907 Coshott v Prentice [2013] FCA 1085 Coshott v Prentice [2013] FCA 1036 Hamod v New South Wales (2002) 188 ALR 658
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate