Coshott v Prentice [2015] FCA 1224

Coshott v Prentice [2015] FCA 1224

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge's finding that there was only one legal entity was not supported by the ASIC records or other evidence; the finding of sham regarding the assignment from Fewin Pty Ltd to Mr Coshott could not stand as it was neither pleaded nor directly put to Mr Coshott, and the relevant documents supported the consideration for the assignments. Fresh evidence (the company search) was properly admitted on appeal and proved the existence of separate entities.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['adducing Fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'assignment of Debt' 'sham Transactions' 'burden of Proof' 'corporate Entity Identification']
['practice and Procedure' 'bankruptcy and Insolvency'] ['adducing Fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'assignment of Debt' 'sham Transactions' 'burden of Proof' 'corporate Entity Identification']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in finding there was only one legal entity (Voits Holdings Pty Ltd) and not a separate B&W Windows Pty Ltd.' 'Whether the assignment of debt from Fewin Pty Ltd to Mr Coshott constituted a sham transaction.' 'Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal regarding company searches.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge's finding that there was only one legal entity was not supported by the ASIC records or other evidence; the finding of sham regarding the assignment from Fewin Pty Ltd to Mr Coshott could not stand as it was neither pleaded nor directly put to Mr Coshott, and the relevant documents supported the consideration for the assignments. Fresh evidence (the company search) was properly admitted on appeal and proved the existence of separate entities.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['The parties are to confer in light of the oral reasons for judgment delivered by Jagot J on 2 November 2015 and within 7 days submit agreed orders in accordance with those reasons.']