Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Coshott v Prentice [2015] FCA 1224 Citation: Coshott v Prentice [2015] FCA 1224
Appeal from: Coshott & Anor v Prentice [2015] FCCA 241
Parties: RONALD MICHAEL COSHOTT and FEWIN PTY LIMITED v MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE
File number: NSD 786 of 2015
Judge: JAGOT J
Date of judgment: 2 November 2015
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether primary judge made finding that was not open on the evidence – primary judge erred – leave granted to adduce fresh evidence on appeal BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY – whether assignment of debt constituted a sham transaction – insufficient evidence to establish a sham – primary judge erred
Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 34A(1), 64ZB(8)
Cases cited: Commercial Union Assurance Co of Australia Limited v Ferrcom Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 389 Coshott v Prentice [2015] FCCA 241 Zaccardi v Caunt [2008] NSWCA 202
Date of hearing: 2 November 2015
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 29
Counsel for the Appellants: Mr A Cheshire SC
Solicitor for the Appellants: Martin Place Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr JT Johnson
Solicitor for the Respondent: O'Neill Partners Commercial Lawyers incorporating Sally Nash & Co
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 786 of 2015
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: RONALD MICHAEL COSHOTT
First Appellant
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