Coshott v Crouch [2017] FCAFC 135

Coshott v Crouch [2017] FCAFC 135

The court held that the orders appointing the trustees for sale and providing for their recompense extended to all reasonable remuneration, costs and expenses incurred in fulfilling their duties, not merely remuneration for selling the property. The orders of Buchanan J, as interpreted and varied, were sufficient to permit this construction. The grounds of appeal were without merit, as the primary judge properly reviewed the Registrar’s decision de novo, applied correct principles, and was entitled to broadly assess the material and the reasonableness of the trustees' claims. The appeal was dismissed with indemnity costs.

Parties
First Appellant: Ljiljana Coshott; Second Appellant: Robert Coshott; First Respondent: Nicholas Crouch; Second Respondent: Shabnam Amirbeaggi; Third Respondent: Maxwell William Prentice
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From De Novo Review by Primary Judge of Determination by Registrar Regarding Trustees for Sale Remuneration
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs on an indemnity basis
Legal Topics
Remuneration of Trustees for Sale, Scope of Trustee Recompense Orders, Review of Registrar’s Decision, Indemnity Costs
Practice and Procedure Insolvency Law Property Law Remuneration of Trustees for Sale Scope of Trustee Recompense Orders Review of Registrar’s Decision Indemnity 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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ljiljana Coshott

First Appellant

Robert Coshott

Second Appellant

Nicholas Crouch

First Respondent

Shabnam Amirbeaggi

Second Respondent

Maxwell William Prentice

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From De Novo Review by Primary Judge of Determination by Registrar Regarding Trustees for Sale Remuneration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary judge erred in construing the scope of trustee recompense orders as including costs and expenses beyond remuneration for sale
  2. 2 Whether the methodology of de novo review by the primary judge was erroneous or shifted burden of proof
  3. 3 Whether the appeal raised any proper basis for disturbing the Registrar’s determination

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the orders appointing the trustees for sale and providing for their recompense extended to all reasonable remuneration, costs and expenses incurred in fulfilling their duties, not merely remuneration for selling the property. The orders of Buchanan J, as interpreted and varied, were sufficient to permit this construction. The grounds of appeal were without merit, as the primary judge properly reviewed the Registrar’s decision de novo, applied correct principles, and was entitled to broadly assess the material and the reasonableness of the trustees' claims. The appeal was dismissed with indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs on an indemnity basis

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed with costs, such costs to be paid on an indemnity basis.