Coshott, Robert Gilbert & Anor v Mak, Kam Tou & Anor [1998] FCA 308

The application was dismissed because the applicants had not placed evidence before the Court establishing a belief that they had a viable cause of action against the respondents, including evidence as to when cracking first appeared or a basis for holding the respondents liable for acts of apparently independent contractors, and they had already had several opportunities to put their claim in order.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 13 March 1998
Procedural Posture: Application to Set Aside a Bankruptcy Notice or Extend Time for Compliance / Notice of Motion Heard on 13 March 1998
Outcome: Application dismissed.
Legal Topics: ['bankruptcy Notice' 'extension of Time for Compliance' 'counterclaim or Set Off' 'costs']

['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure'] ['bankruptcy Notice' 'extension of Time for Compliance' 'counterclaim or Set Off' 'costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside a Bankruptcy Notice or Extend Time for Compliance / Notice of Motion Heard on 13 March 1998

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether the bankruptcy notice should be set aside.' 'Whether time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice should be further extended.' 'Whether the applicants demonstrated a viable claim, counterclaim or set-off against the respondents.']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

['I dismiss the application filed in NG 8258 of 1997.' "I order the applicants to pay the respondent's costs of that application."]