Hancock v Rinehart

In Hancock v Rinehart, the parties were involved in a dispute concerning the administration of a trust. The primary issue before the court was whether the former trustee, Hancock, was required to deliver all documents of the trust to the new trustee, Rinehart, and if so, whether further orders were necessary to implement this. The court had to determine whether the further orders sought amounted to an application for judicial advice, if there was power to give such advice, and whether these orders were precluded by the principles of res judicata, issue estoppel, or Anshun estoppel. Additionally, the court considered if the further orders were effectively "working out" orders.

The court found that the former trustee was indeed required to deliver all documents to the new trustee. However, the court also held that the further orders sought by the parties amounted to an application for judicial advice, which the court did not have the power to provide. Furthermore, the court determined that the principles of res judicata and Anshun estoppel precluded the relief sought by the parties. The court held that the further orders sought were not "working out" orders, as they did not relate to the future administration of the trust but rather sought to enforce the existing orders.

In its decision, the court clarified that the former trustee was not required to provide further judicial advice but was bound by the initial orders. The court also ruled that the subpoenas and notices to produce issued during the hearing were not for a legitimate forensic purpose and amounted to a fishing expedition, thereby setting them aside. The court denied the application for temporary dispensation from the orders, stating that the principles of Anshun estoppel applied, and the application should not be finally determined at that stage.

The final orders of the court included the dismissal of the application for further orders amounting to judicial advice, the setting aside of the subpoenas and notices to produce, and the denial of the application for temporary dispensation from the orders.