Legal Research
Cases
Rinehart v Rinehart

Rinehart v Rinehart

Link copied

Case Copied 17 July 2018 79 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Rinehart v Rinehart [2018] NSWSC 1102
Hearing dates: 5 and 6 July 2018
Date of orders: 17 July 2018
Decision date: 17 July 2018
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Ward CJ in Eq
Decision:
1.   Set aside the subpoena issued by the plaintiff on 10 April 2018 to the Institute of Public Affairs except insofar as it compels the production of documents created or received between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2017 recording any payment or donation of money made by the second defendant (HPPL) or any of its subsidiaries to the Institute of Public Affairs.

2.   Direct that documents produced by the Institute of Public Affairs other than those falling within the subpoena addressed to it, as confined by order 1 above, be returned to the Institute of Public Affairs.

3.   Set aside the subpoena issued by the plaintiff on 10 April 2018 to CEF Pty Ltd, except insofar as it compels the production of documents created or received between 10 July 2014 to date recording any payment or donation of money made by HPPL or any of its subsidiaries and the production of a copy of any trust deed or document establishing the CEF Trust or variation thereof, as operative or extant during the period from 10 July 2014 to 30 June 2017.

4.   Extend the time for compliance by CEF Pty Ltd with the subpoena addressed to it, as confined by order 3 above, for a period from 14 days from the date of these orders and list the matter in the subpoena list on 31 July 2018 for that purpose.

5.   Set aside the subpoena issued by the plaintiff on 12 June 2018 to Senator Barnaby Joyce MP and direct the return to him of the document produced in answer to that subpoena.

6.   Order the plaintiff to pay the costs of CEF Pty Limited of its application to set aside the subpoena to it.

7.   Otherwise reserve the question of costs.
8.   Make orders in accordance with the Short Minutes of Order handed up by Senior Counsel for HPPL on 6 July 2018 as amended by me and initialled on 13 July 2018.
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Subpoenas – Application to set aside
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 79, 237, 247A
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 33.4
Cases Cited: Alister v R (1984) 154 CLR 404; [1984] HCA 85
Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Ltd v Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 393
Associated Dominions Assurance Society Pty Ltd v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1952) 72 WN (NSW) 250
Attorney-General (NSW) v Chidgey [2008] NSWCCA 65
Bianca Hope Rinehart as trustee of The Hope Margaret Hancock Trust [2017] NSWSC 282
Botany Bay Instrumentation & Control Pty Ltd v Stewart [1984] 3 NSWLR 98
Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 564; (1938) 55 WN (NSW) 215
Cosco…

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: [2018] NSWSC 1102
Decision Date: 17 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rinehart v Rinehart was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute involved a significant family dispute over a family trust. Gina Rinehart sought to set aside subpoenas issued by her brother, John Rinehart, in relation to documents she held in her personal capacity. The central issue for the court was whether the subpoenas were properly served and if the documents sought were relevant to the litigation between the siblings.

The court examined the legal framework governing subpoenas in civil proceedings and the principles surrounding relevance and proportionality. The judge considered whether the subpoenas were issued for a proper purpose and whether the documents sought were necessary and proportionate to the issues in dispute. The court also looked into whether there were any valid reasons to set aside the subpoenas, such as potential prejudice or harassment to the applicant.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the subpoenas were properly issued and the documents sought were relevant to the proceedings. The judge held that there were no grounds to set aside the subpoenas as they were not oppressive or vexatious. The court emphasised the importance of preserving the integrity of the litigation process and ensuring that all relevant evidence is available for consideration. The application to set aside the subpoenas was dismissed, allowing the litigation to proceed with the necessary documents being disclosed.

Orders