JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION: HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LTD -v- WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LTD [2019] WASCA 141
CORAM: QUINLAN CJ
VAUGHAN JA
HEARD: 27 AUGUST 2019
DELIVERED : 9 SEPTEMBER 2019
FILE NO/S: CACV 88 of 2019
BETWEEN: HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LTD
First Appellant
HOPE DOWNS IRON ORE PTY LTD
Second Appellant
HANCOCK MINERALS PTY LTD
Third Appellant
TADEUSZ JOZEF WATROBA
Fourth Appellant
WESTRAINT RESOURCES PTY LTD
Fifth Appellant
HMHT INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
Sixth Appellant
ROY HILL IRON ORE PTY LTD
Seventh Appellant
MULGA DOWNS IRON ORE PTY LTD
Eighth Appellant
AND
WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LTD
First Respondent
BIANCA HOPE RINEHART
Second Respondent
JOHN LANGLEY HANCOCK
Third Respondent
HOPE RINEHART WELKER
Fourth Respondent
GINIA HOPE FRANCIS RINEHART
Fifth Respondent
GEORGINA HOPE RINEHART
Sixth Respondent
THE HANCOCK FAMILY MEMORIAL FOUNDATION LTD
Seventh Respondent
150 INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED
Eighth Respondent
MAX CHRISTOPHER DONNELLY as trustee in bankruptcy of LANGLEY GEORGE HANCOCK
Ninth Respondent
MULGA DOWNS INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
Tenth Respondent
DFD RHODES PTY LTD
Eleventh Respondent
MATTHEW JOHN KEADY as executor of the estate of DONOVAN FRANCES DUNCAN RHODES
DOROTHEA MARGARET CAMPBELL as executor of the estate of DONOVAN FRANCES DUNCAN RHODES
Twelfth Respondents
HAMERSLEY WA PTY LTD
Thirteenth Respondent
FILE NO/S: CACV 89 of 2019
BETWEEN: HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LTD
First Appellant
HOPE DOWNS IRON ORE PTY LIMITED
Second Appellant
HANCOCK MINERALS PTY LIMITED
Third Appellant
TADEUSZ JOZEF WATROBA
Fourth Appellant
WESTRAINT RESOURCES PTY LIMITED
Fifth Appellant
HMHT INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
Sixth Appellant
ROY HILL IRON ORE PTY LIMITED
Seventh Appellant
MULGA DOWNS IRON ORE PTY LIMITED
Eighth Appellant
AND
DFD RHODES PTY LTD
First Respondent
MATTHEW JOHN KEADY as executor of the estate of DONOVAN FRANCES DUNCAN RHODES
DOROTHEA MARGARET CAMPBELL as executor of the estate of DONOVAN FRANCES DUNCAN RHODES
Second Respondents
WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LTD
Third Respondent
BIANCA HOPE RINEHART
Fourth Respondent
JOHN LANGLEY HANCOCK
Fifth Respondent
HOPE RINEHART WELKER
Sixth Respondent
GINIA HOPE FRANCIS RINEHART
Seventh Respondent
GEORGINA HOPE RINEHART
Eighth Respondent
THE HANCOCK FAMILY MEMORIAL FOUNDATION LTD
Ninth Respondent
150 INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED
Tenth Respondent
MAX CHRISTOPHER DONNELLY as trustee in bankruptcy of LANGLEY GEORGE HANCOCK
Eleventh Respondent
MULGA DOWNS INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
Twelfth Respondent
HAMERSLEY WA PTY LTD
Thirteenth Respondent
FILE NO/S: CACV 90 of 2019
BETWEEN: GINIA HOPE FRANCIS RINEHART
Appellant
AND
DFD RHODES PTY LIMITED
First Respondent
HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LIMITED
Second Respondent
HOPE DOWNS IRON ORE PTY LIMITED
Third Respondent
HANCOCK MINERALS PTY LIMITED
Fourth Respondent
TADEUSZ JOZEF WATROBA
Fifth Respondent
WESTRAINT RESOURCES PTY LIMITED
Sixth Respondent
HMHT INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED
Seventh Respondent
ROY HILL IRON ORE PTY LIMITED
Eighth Respondent
MULGA DOWNS IRON ORE PTY LTD
Ninth Respondent
MATTHEW JOHN KEADY as executor of the estate of DONOVAN FRANCES DUNCAN RHODES
DOROTHEA MARGARET CAMPBELL as executor of the estate of DONOVAN FRANCES DUNCAN RHODES
Tenth Respondents
WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LIMITED
Eleventh Respondent
BIANCA HOPE RINEHART
Twelfth Respondent
JOHN LANGLEY HANCOCK
Thirteenth Respondent
HOPE RINEHART WELKER
Fourteenth Respondent
GEORGINA HOPE…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] WASCA 141
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to decide whether the interim stay should be granted and, if so, under what conditions. The appellants argued that the preservation of confidentiality was critical pending the substantive appeals. The court considered that, while the discovery orders in paragraphs 5 to 7 of the case management directions should still be enforced, the appellants' concerns about confidentiality could be accommodated by imposing appropriate conditions on inspection of the documents. Specifically, Bianca and John may inspect the documents first but not take copies, and any party may apply to the primary judge for an order to prevent inspection of one or more documents by non-arbitral parties.
The court rejected the submission that prejudice was suffered merely by the existence of confidential documents being known to non-arbitral parties. The primary concern was the handling of the documents themselves and the information they contained, which could be addressed through the terms of the inspection orders. The court concluded that the appellants could apply to prevent inspection of documents relating specifically to Bianca's and John's proprietary claim to the Hope Downs and East Angelas tenements, but not all documents subject to discovery. Pending determination of the application for restriction of access, inspection was not to be provided to Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd or the Rhodes parties.
The court's decision balanced the need for confidentiality with the enforcement of the case management directions. It allowed for the preservation of confidentiality through specific conditions on inspection, while still enforcing the discovery orders as directed by the primary judge. The appellants were permitted to inspect documents first but not take copies, and any party could apply to the primary judge to prevent inspection of certain documents by non-arbitral parties, based on the preservation of confidentiality consistent with the appellants' case on the substantive appeals.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Similar reasoning informed our approach to the discovery orders in pars 5 to 7 of the case management directions. With the discovery orders there was, however, no need to provide for any further confidentiality restrictions (noting that there are already confidentiality orders as to par 5). The discovery orders will only result in the further exchange of lists and expert reports. Loss of confidentiality will only occur on inspection. In oral submissions senior counsel for the HPPL parties sought to contend that prejudice was suffered by reason of non‑arbitral parties becoming aware of the existence of confidential documents even by description. We reject that submission. The interest sought to be preserved is not affected by listing a description of any alleged confidential document; the true concern is what happens to the documents themselves and the information revealed in them. That may be accommodated through the orders made for inspection of the documents produced and the terms on which the inspection may take place.[40][40] Cf Apache Northwest Pty Ltd v Western Power Corporation (1998) 72 ALJR 1136 [23]. We considered that, so far as the discovery orders in pars 5 to 7 were the subject of the interim stay, there should still be discovery consistent with that ordered by the learned primary judge. However, the appellants' concern as to preservation of confidentiality pending the Substantive Appeals could be accommodated by appropriate conditions as to inspection. Effectively the appellants, Bianca and John may inspect first but not take copies. Any of those inspecting parties may then make application to the learned primary judge for an order to prevent inspection of one or more documents by non-arbitral parties. Pending determination of the application inspection is not to be provided to WPPL or the Rhodes parties. The intention - consistent with the basis grounding the interim stay - is that such an application to restrict access be based on preservation of the asserted confidentiality consistent with the appellants' case as advanced on the Substantive Appeals. It would not be consistent with the basis on which the interim stay was granted for the appellants to apply to prevent inspection of all of the documents the subject of discovery pursuant to pars 5 to 7. Prima facie only those documents relating to Bianca's and John's proprietary claim to the Hope Downs and East Angelas tenements should be the subject of application to the learned primary judge.