Coshott v Burke [2013] FCA 513

Coshott v Burke [2013] FCA 513

Although certain documents were prima facie subject to settlement privilege under s 131(1) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 131(2)(h) operates to allow their inspection when relevant to the determination of costs. Therefore, with the exception of documents relating to Mr Burke's medical condition (to which access was not pressed), Mr Coshott is entitled to inspect all other subject documents.

Parties
Applicant: Robert Gilbert Coshott; First Respondent: John Christopher Burke; Second Respondent: The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Bankruptcy Proceedings / Ruling on Interim Application Regarding Inspection of Subpoenaed Documents
Outcome
Application dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Settlement Privilege, Inspection of Documents, Subpoena, Trustee Resignation, Costs
Evidence Bankruptcy Settlement Privilege Inspection of Documents Subpoena Trustee Resignation 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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Gilbert Coshott

Applicant

John Christopher Burke

First Respondent

The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Bankruptcy Proceedings / Ruling on Interim Application Regarding Inspection of Subpoenaed Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents produced under subpoena are protected by settlement privilege under s 131 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether applicant may inspect documents objected to under r 24.20 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
  3. 3 Relevance of privilege to costs determination

Ratio Decidendi

Although certain documents were prima facie subject to settlement privilege under s 131(1) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 131(2)(h) operates to allow their inspection when relevant to the determination of costs. Therefore, with the exception of documents relating to Mr Burke's medical condition (to which access was not pressed), Mr Coshott is entitled to inspect all other subject documents.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed in part

Orders

  • The first respondent's interim application filed 20 May 2013 is dismissed.
  • Mr Coshott must not have access to documents dated 1 March 2006, 26 March 2012, and 6 June 2012 for inspection.