Hancock v Rinehart - [2015] NSWSC 1311

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Hancock v Rinehart [2015] NSWSC 1311
Hearing dates: 31 August 2015
Date of orders: 31 August 2015
Decision date: 31 August 2015
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Brereton J
Decision:
Notice of motion to set aside notice to produce dismissed with costs.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE – subpoenae and notices to produce – application to set aside notice to produce – where documents sought pertain to issues no longer pressed by plaintiffs –applicability of principles from Anshun v Port of Melbourne Authority Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 45; (1981) 147 CLR 589 to interlocutory applications –court’s discretion – where there has been a narrowing of issues in dispute – where situations created by plaintiff’s change of position of the earlier unsuccessful application – held, upholding second application inimical to administration of justice.
Legislation Cited: (NSW) Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 98(4)
Cases Cited: Anshun v Port of Melbourne Authority Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 45; (1981) 147 CLR 589
Brimaud v Honeysett Instant Print Pty Ltd (1998) 217 ALR 44
D A Christie Pty Ltd v Baker [1996] 2 VR 582
Hancock v Rinehart [2015] NSWSC 896
Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100; 67 ER 317
Nominal Defendant v Manning [2000] NSWCA 80; (2000) 50 NSWLR 139
Stevenson v Garnett [1898] 1 QB 677
Wentworth v Rogers (unreported NSWSC, Sperling J, 28 April 1995)
Woodhouse v Consignia Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 275; [2002] 2 All ER 737
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 (plaintiffs)
B McClintock SC (first defendant)
Solicitors:
Yeldham Price O’Brien Lusk (plaintiffs)
Corrs Chambers Westgarth (first defendant)

File Number(s): 2011/285907

Judgment (ex tempore)

HIS HONOUR: Consequent upon an order made in the substantive proceedings on 9 October 2013 that the first defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings to that date on an indemnity basis, the plaintiffs on 2 December 2014 filed a notice of motion seeking an order pursuant to (NSW) Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 98(4)(c), that the first defendant pay the plaintiffs the amount of $2,444,492.76 or such other amount as the Court deems fit. That application was made on the footing of a lump sum order, so as to avoid the costs, expenses and delay that would be associated with engaging the costs assessment process. The application was supported by an affidavit of Timothy Randolph Price of 2 December 2014, in which he deposed to reasons why a lump sum order was appropriate and as to the calculation of that order, including a bill of costs which itemised the amount claimed.
On 5 December 2014, the first defendant caused to be issued and served a notice to produce to Court requiring production, inter alia, of the tax invoices for…

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 [2015] NSWSC 1311
Case: [2015] NSWSC 1311
Decision Date: 31 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hancock and Rinehart were the parties involved in this case, which was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central dispute concerned an application to set aside a notice to produce documents, which the plaintiffs argued were irrelevant as the issues they pertained to were no longer being pursued in the case. The court was tasked with determining the applicability of the principles from Anshun v Port of Melbourne Authority to interlocutory applications and the exercise of the court's discretion in such matters.

The legal issues before the court included whether the principles from Anshun v Port of Melbourne Authority applied to interlocutory applications, and whether the court's discretion should be exercised to set aside the notice to produce given the narrowing of the issues in dispute and the plaintiffs' change of position since the earlier unsuccessful application. The court needed to consider whether upholding the second application would be inimical to the administration of justice.

The court held that the principles from Anshun v Port of Melbourne Authority did apply to interlocutory applications, reinforcing the importance of maintaining the integrity of the litigation process. It further determined that, given the narrowing of issues and the plaintiffs' change of position, the court's discretion should be exercised to set aside the notice to produce. The court found that upholding the second application would not be inimical to the administration of justice, as it would prevent an unnecessary burden on the plaintiffs and ensure that the litigation process remained efficient and fair. The court granted the application to set aside the notice to produce, reflecting its commitment to the fair and efficient administration of justice.

Orders