Coshott v Principal Strategic Options Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 50

Coshott v Principal Strategic Options Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 50

The appellants failed to demonstrate that loss relating to the inability to purchase property, photocopying costs, storage charges, and some interest losses was caused by the s 50 orders rather than the bankruptcy proceedings generally. Compensation was properly limited by the primary judge to those losses directly...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
First Appellant: Robert Gilbert Coshott; Second Appellant: Ljiljana Coshott; Respondent: Principal Strategic Options Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Undertaking as to Damages, Assessment of Compensation, Interlocutory Orders, Bankruptcy Act S 50
Bankruptcy Equity Undertaking as to Damages Assessment of Compensation Interlocutory Orders Bankruptcy Act S 50

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Gilbert Coshott

First Appellant

Ljiljana Coshott

Second Appellant

Principal Strategic Options Pty Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether loss claimed by the appellants was attributable to the making of an order under s 50 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
  2. 2 Principles applicable to the assessment of compensation under an undertaking as to damages
  3. 3 Whether specific heads of damage qualify for compensation under the undertaking

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to demonstrate that loss relating to the inability to purchase property, photocopying costs, storage charges, and some interest losses was caused by the s 50 orders rather than the bankruptcy proceedings generally. Compensation was properly limited by the primary judge to those losses directly attributable to the interlocutory orders, applying the appropriate principles for assessing damages under an undertaking as to damages. Leave to further amend the Amended Notice of Appeal was refused, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Leave to further amend the Amended Notice of Appeal be refused.
  • The appeal be dismissed with costs.