Hancock v Rinehart (No 2) - [2021] NSWSC 3

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hancock v Rinehart (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 3
Hearing dates: On the papers
Decision date: 06 January 2021
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Ward CJ in Eq
Decision:
1. Gina pay Bianca’s costs of the Gina’s application to restrain the WA Access Application by Bianca, such costs to be on the ordinary basis.
2. Each party to bear its or her own costs of Bianca’s amended notice of motion seeking delivery up of the Sceales Files and Bankruptcy Transcripts and of Gina’s applications to stay the delivery up of those documents or for dispensation in relation thereto.

Catchwords:
COSTS — Party/Party — General rule that costs follow the event — Interlocutory proceedings — Where multiplicity of issues and partial success

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 98
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules NSW (2005), r 42.1

Cases Cited:
Hancock v Rinehart [2020] NSWSC 1853
Hawkesbursy District Health Service Ltd v Chaker (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 30
Quest Rose Hill Pty Ltd v White [2010] NSWSC 1190
Roache v News Group Newspapers [1992] TLR 551

Category: Costs
Parties: John Langley Hancock (Second Plaintiff)
Bianca Hope Rinehart (Third Plaintiff)
Gina Hope Rinehart (First Defendant)
Ginia Hope Frances Rinehart (Second Defendant)
Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (Third Defendant)
Hope Rinehart Welker (Fourth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
CH Withers SC with AM Hochroth (Plaintiffs)
CN Bova SC with TE O’Brien and D Reynolds (First Defendant)
J Giles SC with C Mitchell (Second and Third Defendants)
Solicitors:
YPOL Lawyers (Second Plaintiff)
Speed and Stracey Lawyers (First Defendant)
Corrs Chambers Westgarth (Second and Third Defendants)

File Number(s): 2011/00285907
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HER HONOUR: On 17 December 2020, I published reasons for judgment (Hancock v Rinehart [2020] NSWSC 1853 (Motions Judgment)) on a number of interlocutory motions relating to applications made by Bianca for production of documents (see as outlined at [4]-[8] of the Motions Judgment). I here use the same abbreviations as in the Motions Judgment and do so, again, without intending any disrespect.
Relevantly, I dismissed the application by Bianca for delivery up of the Bankruptcy Transcripts, other than in respect of any Bankruptcy Transcripts presently in the actual possession of Gina (see Order 1), ordered the delivery up to Bianca by Gina of the Sceales Files and any Bankruptcy Transcripts referred to in Order 1, but stayed the execution of this order pending determination of the Martin Arbitration (see Order 2), to the extent necessary, dispensed with the requirement for production by Gina of the Sceales Files and any Bankruptcy Transcripts referred to in Order 1 until after the determination of the Martin Arbitration (see Order 3) and dismissed the application for an injunction to restrain Bianca from taking steps to pursue the WA Access Application (see Order 4).
I directed the parties to file brief written submissions within seven days as to costs, with a view to dealing with that issue on the papers. I also gave liberty to apply on seven…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Hancock v Rinehart (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 3
Case: [2021] NSWSC 3
Decision Date: 06 January 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the second iteration of the Hancock v Rinehart case, the plaintiff, Hancock, sought a declaration from the court that the defendant, Rinehart, had breached the fiduciary duties owed to Hancock as a beneficiary under a trust. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where Hancock had previously sought an interlocutory injunction against Rinehart. The current proceeding involved the assessment of costs associated with the interlocutory application.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate allocation of costs in light of the interlocutory nature of the proceedings. The central legal issue was whether the general principle that costs follow the event applied, and if so, how this principle should be applied given the multiplicity of issues and the partial success achieved by Hancock. The court needed to balance the need for an equitable distribution of costs with the procedural realities of interlocutory applications.

The court found that while the general rule that costs follow the event applied, it was not rigidly adhered to in interlocutory proceedings. The court recognised the complexities involved in these types of cases, including the potential for multiple issues and varying degrees of success. The court concluded that a flexible approach was necessary to ensure fairness and proportionality in the allocation of costs. Given the partial success achieved by Hancock, the court ordered Rinehart to pay 75% of Hancock’s costs associated with the interlocutory application.

The final orders of the court mandated that Rinehart pay 75% of Hancock's costs related to the interlocutory application. This decision underscored the importance of a balanced approach to cost allocation in complex litigation, particularly in interlocutory proceedings where multiple issues and partial outcomes are common.

Orders