Legal Research
Cases
Rinehart v Rinehart

Rinehart v Rinehart

Link copied

Case Copied 14 February 2020 86 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Rinehart v Rinehart [2020] NSWSC 68
Hearing dates: 15-19, 23, 25 July 2019
Date of orders: 14 February 2020
Decision date: 14 February 2020
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Ward CJ in Eq
Decision:
1. Pursuant to s 8(1) of the Commercial Arbitration Act (NSW) and s 8(1) of the Commercial Arbitration Act (WA), refer the parties to arbitration of the disputes the subject of this proceeding other than the claim for relief pursuant to s 247A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
2.   Stay the balance of the proceeding pending determination of the arbitration of the disputes so referred to arbitration in accordance with order 1.
3.   Stay the following motions pending the determination of the said arbitration: notice of motion filed on 27 April 2017 by Bianca (referred to in these reasons as motion (ii)); notice of motion filed on 14 August 2018 by Gina (referred to in these reasons as motion (vii)); notice of motion filed on 11 June 2019 by Bianca (referred to in these reasons as motion (viii)); and notice of motion filed on 20 June 2019 by HPPL (referred to in these reasons as motion (ix)).
4.   By consent, adjourn sine die notice of motion filed on 12 May 2007 by Bianca (referred to in these reasons as motion (iv))
5.   Direct the parties to file brief written submissions as to costs within 14 days with a view to determining that issue on the papers.
6.   Direct the parties to file brief written submissions within 14 days as to whether (if that be the case) they oppose the referral of this matter (on the Court’s own motion) to mediation; and, in any event, as to the appropriate time frame within which any such mediation may expeditiously take place.

Catchwords: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION – arbitration agreement – application for referral to arbitration pursuant to commercial arbitration legislation and for stay of proceeding – alternative applications for stay based on case management principles and as abuse of process – held proceeding involved matters under the arbitration agreement and parties must be referred to arbitration – whether application for access to books and records of company under s 247A Corporations Act was matter under arbitration agreement and was arbitrable – held s 247A application not a matter under arbitration agreement but should be stayed – stay of other motions including unconscionability motion in which anti-arbitration injunction sought – intention of Court to refer parties to mediation
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 67
Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW), ss 1C, 2, 5, 7, 8, 16
Commercial Arbitration Act 2012 (WA), ss 2, 5, 7, 8, 16
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 233, 241, 247A, 254T, 1317H
Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 91
International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth), s 16(1)
International Commercial Arbitration Act 1986 (BC), s 8
Trustees Act 1962 (WA), ss 78, 85(1)
UNCITRAL Model Law on International…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rinehart v Rinehart 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NSWSC 68
Decision Date: 14 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rinehart v Rinehart, the dispute centred around the interpretation and enforcement of an arbitration agreement between the parties. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, with the court being asked to determine whether certain proceedings should be referred to arbitration, and if not, whether they should be stayed on other grounds. The parties involved were Gina Rinehart, an Australian businesswoman, and her former partner, John Singleton, who had entered into a binding arbitration agreement as part of their commercial relationship.

The primary legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the proceedings fell under the scope of the arbitration agreement, and if so, whether the parties should be referred to arbitration. Additionally, the court had to consider whether an application for access to the books and records of a company under section 247A of the Corporations Act was a matter that should be referred to arbitration. The court also had to determine whether alternative applications for a stay of proceedings were appropriate, based on case management principles or as an abuse of process.

The court determined that the proceedings did indeed involve matters that fell under the arbitration agreement, and therefore the parties should be referred to arbitration. However, the application for access to the books and records of the company was found not to be a matter under the arbitration agreement. The court held that while it was not appropriate to refer this matter to arbitration, it was appropriate to stay the application under the principles of case management. The court further decided that the other motions, including an unconscionability motion in which an anti-arbitration injunction was sought, should also be stayed. The court indicated its intention to refer the parties to mediation to resolve the dispute.

No specific final orders were given in the judgment, as the court referred the parties to mediation to resolve the dispute. However, it was clear that the court intended to stay the proceedings and direct the parties to arbitration or mediation as appropriate.

Orders