Hancock v Rinehart - [2014] NSWSC 860

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hancock v Rinehart [2014] NSWSC 860
Hearing dates: Thursday 26 June 2014
Decision date: 26 June 2014
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Brereton J
Decision:
Tender admissible

Catchwords: EVIDENCE - relevance - tendency
Legislation Cited: (NSW) Evidence Act 1995, s 94(3), s 97
Cases Cited: Hancock v Rinehart [2014] NSWSC 844
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: John Langley Hancock (first plaintiff)
Bianca Hope Rinehart (second plaintiff)
Gina Hope Rinehart (first defendant)
Ginia Hope Frances Rinehart (second defendant)
Hope Rinehart Welker (third defendant)
Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (fourth defendant)
Hope Downs Iron Ore Pty Ltd (fifth defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
C Withers w N Zerial & A Hochroth (plaintiffs)
NC Hutley SC w BR McClintock SC & CN Bova (first defendant)
RG McHugh SC w PW Flynn (second defendant)
M Deutsch (sol) (third defendant)
DB Studdy SC w C Colquhoun (fourth & fifth defendants)
Solicitors:
Yeldham Price O'Brien Lusk (plaintiffs)
Corrs Chambers Westgarth (first, fourth, fifth defendants)
Gadens Lawyers (second defendant)
Deutsch Miller (third defendant)

File Number(s): 2011/ 285907

Judgment (ex tempore)

HIS HONOUR: On Tuesday I delivered a judgment which was published in written form yesterday morning in which I held that, in principle, a class of documents which the plaintiff proposed to tender was admissible and would, subject to any objections to individual documents, be admitted [2014] NSWSC 844. Counsel for the first defendant has, in his usual courteous way, sought leave to further argue the question and I have permitted him to do so, and have reconsidered the matters on which I then ruled.

Mr McClintock SC quite rightly points out that, contrary to what I said in that judgment, s 95(2) of the (NSW) Evidence Act 1995 means that evidence that is relevant for another purpose cannot be used to prove a particular matter under the tendency evidence provisions, so that the usual position that evidence in for one purpose is in for all purposes, does not extend to make it admissible for tendency purposes.

One of the issues which required consideration is whether it is relevant to prove in the present part of the case that the first defendant committed breaches of trust. The plaintiffs contend that it is relevant to establish that she is a defaulting trustee, and say that such a conclusion would reinforce the requirement that any replacement trustee be independent of her. The defendant's submission is that it is common ground that independence is a prerequisite, and its desirability in the context of this case at least, is not increased merely by establishing that breaches of trust preceded the resignation of the outgoing trustee.

At the hearing in October 2013 I rejected as irrelevant evidence that went to the question of the alleged breaches of trustin or about September 2011, as the first defendant had by then indicated that she would retire and pay the costs of the proceedings for her removal to date, so that proving grounds for her removal was no longer…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hancock v Rinehart

Details

AGLC: Hancock v Rinehart [2014] NSWSC 860
Case: [2014] NSWSC 860
Decision Date: 26 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hancock versus Rinehart was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Gina Rinehart, a wealthy Australian businesswoman, brought a claim against her half-sister, Gina Hancock, and several other defendants, seeking to have certain documents declared invalid and to prevent them from being used as evidence in proceedings related to their deceased father's estate. The defendants argued that the documents were relevant and should be admitted as evidence.

The court was required to determine whether the documents in question were relevant and whether their tendency was to prove a fact in issue between the parties. The court had to consider the nature of the documents, the context in which they were created, and the purpose for which they were offered as evidence. The court also had to consider whether the probative value of the documents outweighed any prejudicial effect they might have.

The court found that the documents were relevant and should be admitted as evidence. The court held that the documents had a tendency to prove facts in issue between the parties, and that their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect they might have. The court rejected the defendants' arguments that the documents were irrelevant or should be excluded on the basis of privilege or confidentiality. The court held that the documents were properly before it and should be considered as part of the evidence in the proceedings.

The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the documents themselves, as well as the context in which they were created and the purpose for which they were offered as evidence. The court held that the documents were relevant to the issues in the case, and that their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect they might have. The court rejected the defendants' arguments that the documents were irrelevant or should be excluded on the basis of privilege or confidentiality. The court held that the documents were properly before it and should be considered as part of the evidence in the proceedings.

Orders